From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource.



This section can be used by any person to communicate Wikisource-related and relevant information; it is not restricted. Generally announcements won't have discussion, or it will be minimal, so if a discussion is relevant, often add another section to Other with a link in the announcement to that section.

Wellcome images made available with Creative Commons licence[edit]

Over 100,000 images ranging from ancient medical manuscripts to etchings by artists such as Vincent Van Gogh and Francisco Goya are now available for free download as hi-res images on our website.

Drawn from the historical holdings of the world-renowned Wellcome Library, the images are being released under the Creative Commons-Attribution only (CC-BY) licence.
Read more ... Thousands of years of visual culture made free through Wellcome Images
billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To also note the discussion Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/01#Wellcome_Images (PL)
See the longer term Commons batch upload project page where questions or suggestions are welcome. -- (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

World Digital Library books available on Commons in many languages[edit]

After five years of discussion(!), I have boldly gone ahead and mass uploaded several hundred books from the World Digital Library collection. See Commons:Category:Books from the World Digital Library and the project page. There are many books hosted by the WDL that are single pdf files greater than 100MB, if you find any on WDL that you would like uploaded to form a Wikisource project, drop me a note/email. -- (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Main Page Improvements[edit]

In my opinion, there are a couple improvements that should be made to the Main Page:

  1. The top banner is too large, pushing actual content down the page - compare it to WP's banner. I don't want to get rid of our scribe mascot, just make him a bit smaller.
  2. We need to make the introductory and help content links more prominent. Currently, the user will need to click on the word "Wikisource" to find WS:WIW (not obvious), or "Community Portal" to find help and discussion pages (I also think this is not obvious). I would like to see more links such as "Help", "Proofreading Guide", "Add to the Library" and a more prominent "Community Discussion" link.

--Eliyak T·C 10:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the following draft?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Accueil scribe invert.png
Welcome to Wikisource,
the free library that anyone can improve.
304,168 texts in English

What Wikisource includes
Community portal
Community discussion News
Help Proofreading Adding texts

I like the smaller banner but dislike the collection of links on the right. How about this Main Page/sandbox? Main changes are: a) smaller banner; b) move explore links into banner; c) expanded new texts as discussed above. Moondyne (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Moondyne: Nice! I made some further adjustments (for reference, this was how it looked before I did so). --Eliyak T·C 03:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I added some nice modern effects to the sandbox via CSS that are visible in modern browsers. I tried to be understated. Getting carried away with special effects can be worse than being bland. --Eliyak T·C 06:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I've adjusted the widths of the right and left columns a bit, because it looked like the Featured Text was a little cramped. Hope no-one minds... —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 07:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
...and do you think a separate column should be included for Poetry in New Texts, or is it fine to include it in Fiction? —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 07:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Noice. IMHO, no to poetry; getting too busy. 54:46 is a good compromise. Moondyne (talk)
It looks like there's an empty space under the left-column which could easily accommodate something else, but for the life of me I can't think what... unless it's time to revive Wikisource:Song of the day? —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 09:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The columns look reasonably balanced to me at present (on my lap-top). If anything, the left is longer than the right, which I'll fix at the end of this month's PotM but reducing the list of recent works there. However, we don't have a lot of "songs" per se at present—not enough to sustain a daily one on the list. However, I've been thinking about the possibility of a "Poem of the day" as a way to commemmorate WWI. Many of the poems in A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919 are dated, and it would be good to feature those on the appropriate date in the next few years. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the "Poem of the day" idea. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm oka with Wikisource:Poem of the Day. If no one minds, I'm making it. Any objections? —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 07:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Help needed with page. I'll make an extra section below about Potd. —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 08:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone there?[edit]

There is a draft new-look Main Page at Main Page/sandbox. Seven regulars have commented or participated in the design. Is there consensus for this change, or are there elements shown which need adjusting? Or shall we continue with the existing? I agree that Poem of the Day needs a separate discussion, and this has already started here: Wikisource talk:Poem of the Day. Moondyne (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering what had become of this...I'm fine with the page as it is now in the Sandbox. Poem of the day needs more discussion, but there doesn't seem to be anyone much else there to discuss with. ;-) Other than that, no worries. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 10:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: If the new texts are to be divided, then it should be done as part of the template itself. Or is there to be a separate New Texts for fiction and non-fiction? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 10:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I envisaged separate F & NF templates. Moondyne (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Moondyne (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, duh.Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 13:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OOPS! Moved my comments to the Main Page: Discussion. Cheers! Shir-El too 11:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks quite nice, excellent job. -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks quite nice.— Ineuw talk 23:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Panel at Wikimania London in August[edit]

Continuing interest from Wikimedia UK in Wikisource, and I said I'd ask here first if there will be a quorum from enWS at Wikimania this year. If so, can we even agree on a working title for a panel discussion, and do something to apply for one? Lively knockabout debate actually can do more to attract an audience than earnest presentations. (My own interests are well known, and I'll be there.) Charles Matthews (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

yes, please. i would like to see a celebration of DNB completion, (with bickering on lessons learned, way forward) lack of WS beer fund adversely affecting probability of attendance, but still. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

for conflict, i would like to see you and DGG fight it out over DNB v. ODNB.
or talk about outside transcription projects, i.e. ;
dunno if foundation will want to fund me, a friend of Stierch, and blocked on en. (mad bad and dangerous to know). Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You should look into scholarships: not the WMF's decision, certainly. I met the guy, or one of them, at the recent London meetup. As for DGG: w:Talk:Mac and Mc together is pretty funny in its way, at least to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

ok, but the scholarship money appears to be long odds ~10%, and their money. i will try to polish my wiki loves capitol hill presentation. i was thinking of DGG’s comment here [1], it’s unclear to me that ODNB is that much of an improvement 70% of the time, but it would make a fine debate. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The DNB project on WP would basically agree that checking the ODNB is good practice. As is trying to find other sources: there are really large numbers of cases where the ODNB apparently confirms things that are in the DNB, but both turn out to be wrong. It all makes an interesting study, and some areas are much more troublesome than others. I found out long ago that the best way to fact-check an article is to expand it. (The ODNB also cuts out certain kinds of information.) Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

feel free to put me on a panel, it would motivate me to cross the pond. i would have preferred a wine & cheese reception with the WS10 proceeds, but they sent me this kobo brick. hope it does not gather dust next to my palm tungsten & betamax. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You could sell it, perhaps, and re-use the proceeds. I get the impression that WMUK are very paranoid at the moment about even the slightest appearance of yet another scandal; so no booze (their Christmas party was the same). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have applied for a scholarship, and will be there if it is possible, so that would be a yes from me. I should romp through the first round, and will hold my breath for the second (and any subsequent rounds). I'll even sleep on someone's floor as long as I get cushions (and get stretching time in the morning). ;-) @Slowking4: we are known as the home of the dangerous, invite SS over under any username she desires within reason), we can put her to work smileybillinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I will probably be there but I won't be doing much other than spectating; it will be my first Wikimania. It would be nice to see some Wikisource presentations, although I expect it to be mostly the usual "Wikipedia and a bit of Commons" material. (I won't need a scholarship; at a push, I can probably walk to the Barbican). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • good, i see we have a panel quorum. how puritanical, in our dry counties, we byob, or you could have the org buy food, and people pay cash bar, or hand check from org to people to bartender. dry events will drive folks to the nearest pub. [2] and there is nothing quite like editing while drinking. i sympathize about the paranoia, don’t need more asbos.
    • SS has her fellowship at UCBerkeley, and is consulting to small GLAMs, don’t know if transcription has ever interested her.
    • i would like to see more what we did, and where we’re going, rather than who we are. although recruiting is good, WMDC is always asking Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Title proposal is "Wikisource: From digitisation to data"[edit]

Working title. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice, works for me. Give us the scope to talk about a range of things: interaction with sister sites, metadata, tools, output forms, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So a submission should be made in March. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just thinking aloud here, and bearing in mind the long-term need to get Wikisource a bit more on the Wikimedia map. There must be several aspects of "DNB land" that remain at the level of possibilities with the DNB "data", and could perhaps be elevated to demo status by August.

One would be a wikibook, or other compilation, that scrapes data about the DNB authors from the author pages. NB that the Catholic Encyclopedia did produce such a handbook. It was suggested quite some time ago by User:Arch dude that we should think in those terms. The Fenwick handbook mostly just lists articles, and we have superseded it, and what is more corrected (very plausibly) one author, via the Grove project. The author research is not quite finished: a Victorian-era scholar might be interested, though. It would do no harm at all to call attention to the research that has gone into those authors, much of which is lurking on talk pages, or in hidden comments.

Another is a more recent and possibly wacky idea of my own: analyse all the endnotes. These are mostly semicolon-separated text. So a bot could plausibly scrape these together in one place, split at the semicolons; and alphabetise them. I initially thought this would help find the typos "colon for semicolon" etc. And it would. But we'd end up with a resource showing quite well what went into compiling the DNB.

Some such things might also apply to other works: EB1911 obviously. I don't want to imply otherwise. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure of what you are requesting here @Charles Matthews:. How specific do the submissions need to be? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the main point would be to send in a panel title. That doesn't need to be coupled to anything so specific, I believe. I was thinking more of what sort of material could be projected up, if enough work had been done ahead of time.

Also, there is stuff going on in June, related to Wikimania advance work: Fringe/Open Scholarship Hack and Fringe/Open Data Hack. They are happening simultaneously with the Fringe/Future of Education Hack which I'm sort of marginally involved in, already. I may be in the building. The topics I mention have some relation to open scholarship, digital humanities, that short of thing. By working the system we could get into the Wikimania workshops with the specifics, I guess. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I intend to get the submission on the road this weekend. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Submission made[edit]


What is needed is expansion of the abstract. Please weigh in over the next week, to bulk up the agenda to about five times the current length. What is there now is the "executive summary" version. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added some brainstormy stuff, in the hope of generating debating points, and in response to some ideas from UK Wikimedians. Still needs a bit more. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured authors[edit]

The Wikisource:Community collaboration (previously Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week) started by Sherurcij appears to be dead since they retired 4 years ago. Given that most editors here at Wikisource are busy with their own projects and there already is Wikisource:Proofread of the Month to propose and complete specific works by any given author, I believe it is unlikely that there are sufficient editors here to proofread/transcribe all works of any prolific author. I instead propose that we start a new "Featured authors" initiative.

  • Contrary to the previous approach there would be no "collaboration", editors will nominate an author for "featured" status, after say, 50% or more works of that author is proofread.
  • Like the "Featured texts" process the author nominated and thereafter selected will be linked from the main page.

This can be synchronised with the featured list process on Wikipedia and can help draw traffic to this site. I am primarily inspired by the efforts of Hesperian regarding Henry James. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea. Let's build a backlog of qualified candidates for review: Author:Plato, Author:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Author:Rabindranath Tagore, Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens, Author:James Joyce - DutchTreat (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If there isn't going to be any collaboration, then the page should be moved to a new title. Any suggestions? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have slightly modified my comment now to give some context. The community collaboration was previously "Collaboration of the Week", with a notable/prolific author chosen every week to improve the works of that author. Now take the case of Henry James. The first major collection of his work was published in 35 volumes. 35, that's a lot!!!! Do folks here seriously believe that there are that many editors here to proofread 35 volumes in a week? The answer is no. But I suspect that by starting this "Featured authors" initiative a lot of editors of Wikipedia can be drawn to this site. Now why? The boost to quality improvement in articles on Wikipedia comes from the desire to get an article featured on the front page, there it gets a lot of page views and recognition etc. Now here on Wikisource an author will stay up on the front page for 30 days (i.e. the time span of "Featured texts" or 30 times that of Wikipedia). Solomon7968 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmmhrmhm. So, in effect, the same process as CotW is used for notable authors with more than 50% of their works transcribed, but with the time period extended to a month. Is that it? I think this proposal should be taken to the Scriptorium for more comment... hey, wait a bit, this is the Scriptorium! Anyway, joking apart, I still feel that the project page should be moved (and considerably renovated) if the project is to be known henceforth as Featured Author and not Community Collaboration (it's the third time it's being moved...) And oh, better start creating a backlog of authors right now, as DutchTreat has suggested. Start on Wikisource talk:Community collaboration for the time being. And I think I'd better bring my Poem of the Day proposal as well to the S'm now... —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
We (I) changed the COTW to Community collaboration as it wasn't happening weekly, if at all. I like the idea of an extra set of features and dynamic content, though I don't think that a wholesale replacement from one fixed set to another is perfect. Though I see that a Featured author or Featured subject component is something that can fit within Community collaboration as while we focus on an author or subject, look to fit works together, we can also look to encourage users to contribute. My reasoning is that Featured sections will take time to build, and if there is a wider options available, then they can be compiled over time. We still want to encourage participation, and not just view. They can also be planned as we do for PotM. Keeping flexibility still allows 12 months of featured authors, but it also allows change and interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Question Question: Is this a featured content item, spotlighting high-quality material on the project (like the Featured Text, Wikipedia's Featured Article, Commons' Featured Picture/Media, etc), or is it a collaboration item, listing things in need of improvement or group-work (like the current Community Collaboration, Proofread of the Month etc)? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
My initial proposal was about featured content item i.e. spotlighting high-quality material (here the time span will be 30 days by default [i.e. the time span of "Featured texts"] or 30 times that of Wikipedia's Featured Article) and try to draw more volunteers here by synchronising it with the featured list process on Wikipedia (see for example the recognized content listings of WikiProject Bibliographies; such FLs of public domain authors are especially relevant here). Solomon7968 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


  • Support - This is a nice way to bring attention to author portals. As long as we keep overhead low for reviewing candidates, we should have plenty of authors in backlog that could qualify. DutchTreat (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support oh yes. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 11:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, wonderful idea. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Poem of the Day[edit]

As discussed above in #Main Page improvements, it has been proposed that a new Poem of the Day feature be introduced on the Main Page [originally suggested to occupy the extra space on Main Page/sandbox, I believe this has since been fixed]. We have plenty of poems on Wikisource, of which not many are featured. As User:Beeswaxcandle has said, poems from A Treasury of War Poetry can be featured this year to commemmorate WWI. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If it comes in handy, I have begun a chronological list of poems from TWP with poems that lend themselves to such a list. You can find the [incomplete as of this post] list in my sandbox. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure! Let's fill up the Main Page with two one-sixth-sized sections devoted to the single academic field of literature. And debut them at the same time. Why the hell not? ResScholar (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: We would need 364 poems. I'm not sure we can manage that if the criteria become too strict. (It might be a push anyway). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it looks like many editors here focus on poetry anyway, so it shouldn't be too difficult. And if there aren't enough for a daily selection, then we can change it to a weekly feature. 52 poems aren't too many--many poetry anthologies contain around that many poems, if not more. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 13:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a proposal, it's a provocation. Why not a Popular Science or physics article of the day? Or a social science or political article of the day? Or a court decision of the day? Or a Dictionary of National Biography or history entry of the day? Or an encylopedia entry of the day? You certainly think highly of literature. But why should everyone else be pressured to think of it as highly as you? ResScholar (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be placed at Portal:Poetry? There is a link to the portal already under "Highlights" on the WS Main page. I don't think that Portal has been updated in a while (2012, actually)...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: well not many poem articles in w:Category:Poems. might require some curation. are anonymous poems notable? just cause i haven’t written the bio, doesn’t mean they’re not notable. need to make more source links to articles like w:The New Colossus. now that user:AWadewit is gone, we have fewer good article editors for old literature. the gall of putting literature on main page. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible elements to include[edit]

  • Picture (either that of the poet or an illustration from the poem/book itself)
  • Short description (might include name, poet's name, date, collection name, background info, etc.)
  • Excerpt
  • Audio
  • add next

User:Clockery/Sandbox1 is a draft of the Main Page template. Feel free to modify.

Criteria for a poem to be featured[edit]

  • must be scan-backed
  • the scan should be a significant edition e.g. first edition.
  • must be validated
  • the poem itself must be notable, and preferably downright famous
    • What does "notable" mean in this context? —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 13:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • If it has it's own article on Wikipedia it is notable. If it is mentioned in an article on Wikipedia, it is probably notable. If the author does not have a article on Wikipedia, none of their works are notable. Some grey area left in the middle. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • add next

BOT approval requests[edit]


Table transclusion/formatting help[edit]

I need an extra set of eyes... Can someone please take a look at the table formatting on DJVU pp. 352-355 and see why it is not transcluding correctly in the Main? Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be okay now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error[edit]

In the page The Burglar, where pg. 111 begins, the formatting is broken (appearing as it would on Wikipedia if the line began with a space). I have no idea how to fix this, as I'm not an editor on this project and the interface is different, so I figured I'd mention it here instead. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Hesperian 05:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I upload these scans to Wikisource?[edit]

Can I upload a copy of a scan that someone else made to Wikisource so that I can make a searchable version of it? Specifically, I'd like to upload scans of some orders-in-council amending the Constitution of Canada, such as this one and make pages for the documents under the Template:Legislation-CAGov licence. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The last time I tried uploading a Government of Canada document & image, it was rejected by Commons because, while the Canadian Parliament Archives emailed me the permission, it was not in the format demanded by Wikimedia Commons. It's best if you get the proper format from Wikimedia Commons and forward it to GoC archives for permission.— Ineuw talk 23:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Arctic.gnome, if the underlying material may legally be hosted (it's not clear to me from {{Legislation-CAGov}} that it may, but I'll leave that to you) then the fact that someone else made the scan is of no importance: no copyright arises from "a mere mechanical scan or photocopy". Hesperian 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Being able to use another's scan solves one hurdle. The other is where I can upload them. As I understand it, I can't upload them to Commons because they have two additional conditions attached to the licence beyond cc-by-sa--namely the requirement to be accurate and the requirement to state that they aren't official. If these requirements are acceptable to Wikisource but not to Commons, what are my options? Can I transcribe the texts to Wikisource without uploading an image to Commons? Can I upload the image to Wikisource instead of Commons? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Arctic.gnome:We work on a priority order. 1) Host them at Commons if at all possible [this makes them available to all wikis, not just ours] 2) if Commons cannot take them, and they are public domain documents (or equivalent) in the US and fit within WS:WWI, then they can be hosted at English Wikisource. That said please ensure as part of the WS:WWI that you look at the licensing and also Help:Copyright tags.

Re the scan type, it is what works well in our side by side system. If we have PDF or DJVU they have text layers that can be scraped and imported. If it is a jpg or something else the system recognises then you have typing or copy and pasting to do. If it is something not recognised, then we a problem, though that doesn't mean that we cannot host the text, it just means that it is unsupported by the image (which is not our preference). — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

File upload help request[edit]


Seasons greetings from Marathi language wikisource(mr). We tried to upload a India public domain book in PDF format. It showed upload completed but PDF document commons:File:Chhandorachanaa.pdf was not readable at all . We want and request some one upload document for us either on or on commons. We need it for a collaborative wikisource writing project.

  • Reffered and requested upload book is Chandorachana (Marathi:छन्दोरचना)
  • Is writtern by : W:en:Madhav Julian (Marathi: माधव जुलियन) (January 21, 1894 – November 29, 1939)
  • It is Public Domain copyright free due to expiry of copyright period in India Please refer licence commons:Template:PD-India {{PD-India}}
  • The Book is available online at

Earliest help will be apreciated.

Thanks and Regards Mahitgar (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this work for you: Commons:File:छन्दोरचना.djvu? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This has worked. Lot of thanks Thanks and warm greeting. For some technical reasons i have not been able to use djvu on PC. This has been very valuable support from your side. Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for help with TOC page listing[edit]

Can anyone pls help me with this little nasty problem on Page:The_Economic_Journal_Volume_1.djvu/7. The problem is at the lower part of the page, just above “NOTES AND MEMORANDA”. There is a link to four pages there. I can't get them in one row. This is how far I got. Thnx. - Dick Bos (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The secret is parameter col3-width of {{dotted TOC page listing}}. The default width is only 2em, which is just about full with 3 digits, let alone four references + ancillary spaces and commas (which is why they formatted vertically.) I gave it 12em for the sake of this trial, but feel free (of course) to tweak that as you want. AuFCL (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll soon try it in another spot. Dick Bos (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to mention: to make the page-numbers column completely "set-and-forget", try setting parameter |col3-width=auto. The price you pay is ragged ends to the dot leaders, but you might find it the simplest option. AuFCL (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Last suggestion retracted, as it does not appear to work well in some browsers. AuFCL (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Non english charecters...[edit]

Can someone that's familiar with the relevant languages look over this and insert the appropriate characters?

Index:Adapting and Writing Language Lessons.pdf

I've tried to make intelligent guesses in places, but would appreciate someone else taking over.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked a few random pages and can't see any non-Latin characters. Could you give some pointers as to what the problems are (page numbers, particular language, &c.)? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC) - Thai. For starters.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
First, that's not Thai, or else I would suggest you don't touch it. Hehe. However, as far as I can tell, it is IPA for Thai words, so you can just use that alphabet for it. For example, using text from the page:
nîi ʔaray
nîi mîitkoon

OK It looks like IPA, but in places it's accented, and the accented versions are not in the Charcters box, I stil think it requires a specialist. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird typesetting issue[edit]

I just worked on this page, and it has an unusual versification in it. Does anyone have any idea how to transcribe it? Would it be best just to use an image in its place?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes.. Given its an inscription marking? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I took a shot at transcribing it in Unicode. Given that it's not like an etching or something I think it might be more appropriate to render it that way rather than with an image, even though I think most/all Ogham fonts are going to have that center line which isn't present in the text's typeface. Prosody (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Erm, what font did you use? All I see are little boxes... Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, damn, that hadn't occurred to me. It's Segoi UI Symbol on Firefox on Windows 7. Default Windows 7 font, but it's not going to be available everywhere. Chrome on the same machine doesn't even use it. I don't think there's any support in Universal Language Selector even if that gets turned back on. I guess we'll have to fall back to using images. Prosody (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Wait, the DejaVu family has Ogham. Anyone know what the list of fonts on the Universal Language Selector is? Prosody (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Integrating plate images into mainspace[edit]

I just finished proofreading The Indian Dispossessed (index), but before announcing its completion (however that's done), the book has a few plate images which don't have any obvious location within the chapters and text. How might these be best included in mainspace? djr13 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

They should be included in the text as I did one formatted sample Page:The Indian Dispossessed.pdf/112, Main mnamespace = The Indian Dispossessed/The Nez Perces. Please look at the changes in the "File" image wrapper and caption centering. For some reason, when wrapped as before, the caption becomes noticeably offset. I also reduced the image size to 430px. My reasons for this are complicated, but primarily it's because the text width of the Main namespace Option #2 is about ~450-460px. An oversized image may lack esthetics.— Ineuw talk 03:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I had thus far avoided doing it that way, as breaking paragraphs (usually unrelated to the image) for full-page plate images seems sub-optimal. And what to do with the frontispiece image? Sure there isn't another way? (Hmm, it looks like I was possibly supposed to name each mainspace subpage a generic "Chapter 1" etc....) djr13 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Just picking up on a couple of your questions:

For the chapter numbering, the generic version is only when the chapters are numbered either in the TOC or in the chapter headers. If the chapters don't have this, then the way you've named them is fine. It's really about linking to them from other works.

In re your other concern, have a look at Picturesque Nepal where we put the images in wherever they came in the book. The alternative is more complex, but can be seen in the earlier chapters of The Conquest of Mount Cook. The proofreader here chose to move the images to the end of paragraphs in the mainspace but left them where they are in the Page: namespace. This was done by using includeonly and noinclude tags. Both of these books have frontispieces that have been done slightly differently. Nepal has the frontispiece as the opening page before the title. Mount Cook transcludes them the other way around, so that the title page is up-front. If the cover image is a good one, then that can go in first. A recent example of this is On to Pekin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle is correct and I should have been more specific in regard to images. In the main namespace, one has the latitude to place images, especially full page images, at the beginning of a chapter. It's your choice. Already moved the image in The Indian Dispossessed/The Nez Perces to the beginning since it's the only image in that chapter. — Ineuw talk 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've gone with including the images at the beginning of each chapter, and including the frontispiece where it otherwise would be plus including the half-title before it where otherwise I excluded this as redundant. It's still a bit cludgy but seems workable. It seems like there's no good way to include such large, text-breaking images in mainspace due to format limitations. The most obvious alternative to me would be either folding them into thumbnails or offsetting them into the side-area in a similar way to what annotations are heading. I'll look into announcing the completion now. Thanks both. djr13 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks great. — Ineuw talk 21:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oversized mathematical operators in print[edit]

I've been looking for oversized mathematical operators used in 19th century printed matter: like double length = signs, double size + signs etc., but have not found in any UTF-8 reference tables. Do they exist? — Ineuw talk 02:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they exist as unique symbols per se, but perhaps try wrapping them in {{larger}} or {{x-larger}}? Eg. to get an affect like so: 7 ÷ 2  π .
Alternatively -- does the wikisource software support LaTeX? If it does, there are some commands to support resizing of portions of equations that may be possible to use. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I believe WS does support LaTeX.— Ineuw talk 05:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you please be so kind as to supply context/examples? I expect these are not quite what you are looking for, but there do exist UNICODE for (say) double- and triple-equals (⩵:⩵ and ⩶:⩶ respectively), and so-called "heavy" plus (➕:➕), minus (➖:➖) and division signs (➗:➗); and the dual-purposed "cross mark" (❌:❌) paired with "heavy large circle" (⭕:⭕).
Thanks for your help. The start of this page is a perfect example of the hundreds of times it's used. Unfortunately, the above symbols are not the ones I was looking for, but the LaTeX symbols are.

WS does not support all of Latex, only the texvc subset (see mw:Extension:Math, but that gives you =+-\times\div at least. AuFCL (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
These are the very symbols I was looking for since 1872 - when PSM started publication. Face-smile.svg. As for the LaTeX support I was only aware of {some] math, but didn't know that they can be used for just the symbols. My thanks to you both.— Ineuw talk 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The first line of that page might be produced by something like:

<math>\scriptstyle{+,~-,~\sqrt{}}</math>. In the same century Vieta…
—with result:
\scriptstyle{+,~-,~\sqrt{}}. In the same century Vieta…

Notes and hints:
  1. Make sure that is a "normal" minus sign; dashes or mdashes send <math> into (lexing error) sulks!
  2. Tildes (~) may be used to add spaces inside the <math> string. Normally spaces are stripped out as if they were never there.
  3. Although <math> doesn't seem to analyse the command string too closely, thinks like \sqrt are considered to be functions and won't work (syntax error)) without at least empty {}s following.
  4. I routinely enclose <math> strings in \scriptstyle{}, mainly because I find the text is too large to match surrounding text. Of course your aesthetics and the situation may differ.
  5. Be aware that <math> produces its output as an image, with the side-effect it will not "split" when line-wrapping occurs. It is often wise to make several short <math> blocks (say between commas) rather than one long one and risk later disappointment.
Hope this is useful, and I am not merely repeating stuff you already know. AuFCL (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Could {{FI}} be of any use here?
 | type  = math
 | width = 25%
 | file  = <math>sin x = {e^{ix} - e^{-ix} \over 2i} </math>

sin x = {e^{ix} - e^{-ix} \over 2i}

Just wondering...... -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
AuFCL, thanks for those very important points, of which I was only aware of \scriptstyle. If you haven't done so, please consider including your instructions on the Math help page. Otherwise these will be buried in the Archive.
Wonder no longer GO3. I will be using {{FI}}. There are hundreds of formulas need to proofread/updated in PSM.
Many thanks to all for the above info.— Ineuw talk 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Point of Order - please use math instead of user for FI's type= parameter. Both should produce the same output but one day User might be needed for a 4rth application or something. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that the {{FI}} above produces quite blurry results, and evidently doesn't even work outside PNG mode. (I don't think it will show up at all in PDF output, for example.) —SamB (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick access icon link to the Commons is gone from WS images[edit]

Can someone please restore the quick link icon to the Commons image source. In one of the recent mw software updates, it disappeared. Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 03:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I still see the icon linked to Commons on my File: pages (inline with header text to the top-right). Can anyone else replicate? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I can confirm the Commons icon is visible on for example, say, here. AuFCL (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
OK then - back to basics....

Ineuw, can you see the icon on

at all? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can see both.— Ineuw talk 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
To further clarify, I can see the two icons GO3 has included, but there is no icon on the smiley image, nor on any other image from the commons.— Ineuw talk 17:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I inverted the order in MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here; see if that made any difference on any File: namespace page for you & report back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort but no go. Here is a screen image File:No icon link to the Commons.jpg I've taken earlier. This issue is an old one. Haven't had a commons link for many weeks. Would this be controlled in Preferences? — Ineuw talk 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw: GOT IT - Apparently (& Sadly) you are always going to be "less than whole" when it comes to certain defaults because you are in Canada but use [American?] English in your settings. Without your own Canadian MediaWiki message base, your "setup" surps from the US set when it can but fails unless a proper subset(?) is created in certain instances (or at least that is how I've come to observe this behavior to date).

Added MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here/en-ca and that should "rectify" your missing icon issue. I guess it comes at the expense of what amounts to a "redundant" MediaWiki message.

Anyone have the same problem but is a "closer" subject of the Crown than Canada? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Now you point that out, en-gb (which would normally be my preferred choice; my earlier "working" observation was made as Preferences/Language/en—now [temporarily?] retracted) exhibits the same issue (i.e. missing Commons icon). Regards, AuFCL (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL - can you verify both of your prior observations still hold now? I just discovered [:MediaWiki:Sharedupload] (created 2005 & made a redirect in 2012) might be involved in this & just deleted our local copy of it to see what happens (if anything). It would be great if that restored everything but I'll add the gb if it didn't. TIA --- George Orwell III (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No, only MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here shows Commons icon (which should not be a shock, because that is what it really does) here. The others, all nada, since changing Preferences from 'en'→'en-GB'. AuFCL (talk)
Thanks. IMO - It's a bit crazy to add something like the Commons top icon to a MW message that isn't working across the board in the first place. I'm going to try finding a better MW message to host the icon so the crippled message [in theory] really is separate from the icon. Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
OK @AuFCL: - {{Commons top icon}} is now hosted via [:MediaWiki:Filehist-help]. Please check any File: page to see if the icon appears (& works!) like it should no matter the language setting in use. Only difference, now, should be one has a FMbox (for the blind?) for a default message while the other(s) use the system standard default, plain-text message w/ link to shared file description info back on Commons found just below the file-size/mime type, etc. info (The icon should appear in the top right corner regardless!) -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Scratch all that attempted 'moving around', en-ca & en-gb created but all 3 call Template:Sharedupload-desc-here instead of hosting the same stuff 3x in the MW namespace. Please report in now that this seems like the "final" solution moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many pardons for delayed response (Real Life™ interfered.) All O.K. re: Commons icon again this side now. Thank you. AuFCL (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
My hero. Just another heartfelt thank you GO3. It works! — Ineuw talk 05:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PROOFREADPAGE - Both the default and auto edit-summary texts based on status no longer being populated[edit]

originally titled: On Page creation, "Not proofread" is not showing up in the Summary

Since I've been on a roll of success today, would it possible to display the default "Not proofread" in the Summary field when the page is created? This used to be so several software updates ago. I request this because most pages need proofreading.— Ineuw talk 09:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Verified (XpPro, IE8).

    In addition, when opening edit mode on existing pages already given a PR status, the corresponding edit-summary text matching that current status once was pre-populated in the summary field upon entering edit-mode by default & remained that way until/unless the Editor manually 'ticked' a change in status prior to adding additional comments and saving. That "function" has also stopped working (under edit or preview; no difference) and a blank field is now the default instead (of course, until/unless a ststus is manually ticked &/or edited before the final save). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished works of unknown authorship[edit]

I found in some family documents a carbon copy of a poem or song from c. 1918. Based on the POV of the narrator, it pretty clearly wasn't written by the family member who kept it, but rather by an enlisted man stationed at the same air field. I googled some of the lines in case it was published, including more generic lines in case it was just a local take on a more widespread song, but if so it's certainly not on the Internet yet. (And honestly, I don't think it was terribly well constructed.) I'm really not sure whether to use {{PD-anon-1923}}, which says it's for published works, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which requires knowing when the creator died, or whether it's just not kosher at all. It seems like something that would be of some interest historically, so it'd be nice to make it available. Laurascudder (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those will work, you don’t know it was published and you don’t know when the author died. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And that's why I'm here. Any solutions? Laurascudder (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a copyright issue. Unpublished works aren't subject to the 1923 thing as you might otherwise expect. See here: Help:Public domain#Unpublished works See if you can find if the author died in 1943 or earlier. djr13 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
According to this table, unpublished works with no known year of death are under copyright for 120 years from the date of creation. Assuming 1918 is correct, it won't be in the public domain until January 2039. There seems to be some clause involving certification by the Copyright Office but, otherwise, legally it cannot be hosted here. Sorry. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How to prepare this text from for proofreading[edit]

I'm thinking about trying to prepare for upload (it should be obvious why), which was scanned from microfilm and has two pages on each "page", and looks not to be very thoroughly OCR'd. What approach would be simplest? Tell @Inductiveload I might be willing to let him tackle it? (It's quite huge! On the other hand, the scans are neatly bundled in a PDF, from which they can presumably be losslessly extracted quite trivially.)

See also w:Federal Register for bibliographic information, including the usual citation convention. —SamB (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the 'obvious-ness' escapes me. What exactly is it that a partial FR volume "gets us"? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Showing thumbnails of pages[edit]

Hi wikisorcerers,

Can you check this template: {{PageFile}}. It is used to show thumbnails from the pages in the Index Talk page (example here), so we can locate more easily and quickly a page. Is everything correct? I have imported and translated it from French Wikisource (history here). Please don't hesitate to improve it! --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Very neat, ty.— Ineuw talk 22:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, though I'd much rather have Book2Scroll (2nd Icon at the top-right of every Index: Page) "refined" a bit further so it loads/renders properly under our current code environment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category for materials under CC0[edit]

I am wondering why CC0 is not mentioned in Wikisource:Copyright policy, nor in some category similar to. Any pointers? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons has a template and category. I suppose we should follow their lead if there's any works we have which it's applicable to. Prosody (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text formatting help[edit]

Forgot to ask for formatting help here, if anyone has a good idea how to best format the text in caps. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A possible hint in the first paragraph.--Mpaa (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried to understand the markup, but with little success. I think the text should be recreated exactly as in the original (breaks where there are breaks, etc.), for I think it was transcribed as found "scratched upon the walls" (if I read correctly). Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had a go. See what you think. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Permit my 2 Canadian cents' worth of input but tables are superior - and never fail. I won't revert the most recent edit by Beeswaxcandle, but pasted my enhancements of Mpaa below

IneuwPublic (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the stability of tables, but I think BWC's rendering is most faithful to the original, and what I was looking for. My first thought was tables too; I didn't at first consider gaps, but unless one can recreate BWC's rendering with a table, I think I'll keep things as is. Thanks all for your input! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it can be done as a table. But you still need gaps to match the alignment of the inscriptions.
 1607. ADI 2. GENARO. FUI RE-
Alternative methods would be to nest a table with the indented lines within the larger table or to set each line of the inscriptions as a line in the table with 8 or 9 columns and lots of colspans. But why complicate things? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks good as well. I would not be able to complete the page with my 'skill set', however. I'll leave that to those familiar with the markup, or I am happy to keep things as is. Thank you all for taking the time to help; and BWC, thanks again for checking/amending my Greek. There are two more pages that I forgot to add the Greek missing tag (now added), and then the text can be marked as proofread! Thanks again for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Couple minor works pending help[edit]

I have a couple works I have proofread which are pending some assistance. One of these I had posted about last month, a songbook, thus needing relatively heavy transclusion work (I've done this with another edition, but could use review on if I'm doing it right such as choice of page names). The other is Evolution of American Agriculture (index), for which I have three things I am hindered by: tables (full pages 62, 63, 64, and 65; smaller tables pages 47 and 48), what to do with the heavy illustrations which mix with text, and whether I should interpret the last listed chapter (see index) as "Chapter 11" despite it not being listed as such in the TOC. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I got the smaller tables on pp 47-48 working by (ab)using {{dotted TOC page listing}}. The images that are the chapter headers should be done by carefully splitting the images into parts and then using floats. (See, this as an example of what I mean by that.) As for the full-page tables, or the mysterious "Chapter 11", I have no idea. Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to use either the split or "flow under" method without breaking the drop caps, eg, alt text? djr13 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had a go at the table on p62 for you. If it's OK, then copy that formatting onto the other 3 pages and drop the text into the appropriate spots. AuFCL is currently working on the flow under technique, so he'll be the best to answer that. In re "Chapter 11", there are no particular guidelines on how to deal with this situation. We just need to be able to link to it should another work refer to it. The way I personally would do it would be to name it (i.e. Evolution of American Agriculture/Development of the Agricultural Workers Union No. 400). This maintains the authorial intent (or the publisher's intent) as I'm guessing it's really an appendix to the main work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding use of {{flow under}}, I would be inclined to set the image alternate text (i.e. File:...alt=) to reflect the drop capital which the chapter image effectively represents. Apologies for not doing this on the first edit (hope this is a bit more to your liking?) Actually clicking on the image still works and takes you to the background image as before (and may be controlled at need by resort to the native parameter.)

All of these remarks should apply equally to the "split" image method if you choose to go that way.

Specifically regarding "breaking the drop caps," what exactly would you like to happen? Certainly wrapping {{drop initial}} around the chapter header image will fail using either image approach, but would you really need or want to do so?

Oh, and please don't give me credit for the technique: the more I look into the idea, the more previously existing instances keep turning up. I am, however guilty of trying to shoehorn it into a template (set) [hat tips to GOIII Beeswaxcandle & Eliyak for valuable advice], which of course I hope you may find usable/useful. AuFCL (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

After you made the first edit (which I'm still pretty damn impressed by as is) I did dig into it to try learning how it was's obviously still rather experimental, for better or worse. I'm still at the point of being intimidated by the simplest wiki tables. :-) By "breaking drop caps," I mean, to put it in the most easily testable terms, ensuring that given degradation of images (whether by technical limitations or nonvisual reading devices), the text will still render clearly. For example, you can check this by seeing if the text otherwise represented in images displays as would be expected when you copy/paste into a plain text editor. I appreciate all the help, I am trying to learn from all of it. djr13 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
A perfectly valid point, and that last edit of mine fails; as the alt-text on the image "cuts" before the "Development of A.W.I.U. 400" title, even though ideally it should come afterwards. Some (more) things to check for! AuFCL (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Poems and page breaks[edit]

I'm trying to transcribe a poem that has stanzas (or whatever the "paragraph" equivalent is called in poetry), and I'm having a problem with their transclusion into the main namespace. Namely, there's a stanza break at the end of one page, and the next page starts with a new stanza, but when transcluded into the main namespace it's all clumped together into one long double-stanza.

The pages in question are pages 5 and 6 of Index:Morning-Glories and Other Stories.djvu. Their transclusion is here.

I tried using {{nop}} like I would use if it were a paragraph that ended at the page break, but that didn't work. Nor did using a second {{nop}} at the top of the second page. I also tried inserting an extra few lines of whitespace within the <poem> tag, since those tags are whitespace-sensitive, but that didn't work either.

What is the appropriate template, tag, or structure to use to get this stanza-break to show up in the main namespace transclusion? Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried using an {{nop}} inside the <poem> tags at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page; for some reason, it seems to have worked. Could you please check whether it works now? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 16:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, works now! Thanks, Clockery. I'd like to say that I would have figured it out eventually, but I'd never have thought to put the {{nop}} inside of the <poem> tags themselves. It seems like a very convoluted solution to what appears to be a rather imple problem. Thanks! Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I seem to have inadvertently avoided this in my poems-across-breaks endeavors. I've been adding little passive-aggressive hidden comments onto poem tags that should ideally wrap gracefully, the presence of these extra tags being that which may or may not be related to the joining behavior. For example, see the page breaks between 22, 23 and 24. Might be another option in your arsenal, especially if you want to blow off steam while at it. :-) djr13 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I rather like Djr13's approach. Almost psychotherapy: "How does young madam Poem feel about behaving today?"

Please pardon my mucking about thrown into the mix. Apart from the centring I don't think I've added anything much useful.

I am aware of editors who avoid the use of <poem> entirely. Enclosing the whole passage inside (say) {{block center/s}}/{{block center/e}} pairs (which cross pages O.K.) and then using <br/>s at every line-break is much more robust, but of course the raw source is then quite ugly. AuFCL (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph break not visible[edit]

On this page A break between two paragraphs is not visible in read mode and they appear as one continuous paragraph. The text is enclosed by {{fs90/s}} — with {{fs90/e}} embedded in the footer. Since I am using the Modern skin, I also checked if the problem was skin related by switching back to Vectra, but the result is the same. Can someone please point out what's wrong? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the {{fs90/s}} template page says "This template renders the text of a single paragraph at 90% of normal size." (emphasis mine) Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg The text was copied from {{fs90}} which I created. {{fs90/s}} was created for multiple paragraphs. (I should correct that). Also, the paragraph break has nothing to do with the font. There is something wrong with that page. If you look at subsequent pages, the paragraph breaks work fine.— Ineuw talk 19:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Thanks for pointing this out. Two different templates share the same documentation which technically shouldn't happen. I posted a request on GO3's talk page, to help me sort it out.— Ineuw talk 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I kicked it, and it seems to work now. djr13 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, a good kick. — by Ineuw earlier this afternoon.
I cannot necessarily give a lucid explanation, but {{fs90/s}} only works for a single paragraph unless:
  1. You separate the last "}" of the template from the text you want it to affect by a new line; or
  2. You enclose the following paragraphs in <p>/</p>s (or some template (like {{p}} which generates them.)
Mediawiki appear to "shoehorn" <div>s (upon which the operation of e.g. {{fs90}} relies) correctly in only at certain points. This is not the problem; the real problem is that if it cannot find a suitable "spot" (<p>s being one, there may be others..?) it silently refuses to process "double-new-lines" into proper paragraphs up to the end of the enclosing </div>. I can only assume this is a still-extant parser limitation of some antiquity. AuFCL (talk)
To be clear, in the above example I used {{fs90/s}} and not {{fs90}}, which was my own rudimentary & elementary contribution - functioning on single paragraphs and I no longer use, having switched to GO3's version of {{fs90/s}} & {{fs90/e}} hundreds of times, but never came across this problem beforehand.— Ineuw talk 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
<generic expletive>I mistyped. The earlier discussion was meant to refer to {{fs90/s}}, not to {{fs90}} as originally stated. The rest of the discussion, however clumsy, still stands. AuFCL (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood both the correction and your explanation. I just wanted to clarify the history for those who still use {{fs90}} to span multiple paragraphs. In any case, I replace them when I come across them, whether they are used on single or multiple paragraphs.— Ineuw talk 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Google page removal[edit]

Could someone remove the initial "Google" page for Index:A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems (1919).djvu? This transcription project seems to have gone fallow, and I'd like to take it on, but not until the pagination is corrected from removal of the Google notice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to do that? I usually just mark the page 'without text' when I find them. Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes we should, because it appears on the Commons. Others can give you other and better reasons as well. It's not a big deal and several people here can do it for you, or tell you how it's done before uploading.
The fundamental issue is that we should look on IA for other copies NOT donated by Google because they tend to damage the works deliberately to their advantage, a topic sometimes discussed in the past.
Another downside of using Google copies with the disclaimer page, is that we can't use the direct IA to Commons transfer tool because it must be downloaded to remove their disclaimer. — Ineuw talk 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Another issue with leaving the Google page in is that it often displaces pagination by one so that left hand pages become odd-numbered and right hand pages even-numbered. This messes up automatic heading creation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle, in such a case just remove a page at the end of the book which is often a back cover or library card - some useless page for our purpose. I believe that brings the book back to the correct pagination. Cheers friends, —Maury (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick poll on Unicode use[edit]

Greetings all. I have come across a number of pages (e.g. here and here) where the authors make use of an upside-down Greek iota. Whilst I have found Unicode &#8489; (℩), I am not confident it will work in all cases (i.e. does the dreaded blank box appear here →℩← for anyone? Microsoft browsers?) and would appreciate any feedback.

Alternatively has anybody got any ideas as to how to express this more universally? (I've temporarily given up on finding a <math> solution, but one would be really nice bearing in mind the nature of this particular work…) I note that even a related Wikipedia article seems to have given up on this, and simply uses the normal (unturned) Greek iota. AuFCL (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, all I see is the dreaded null-box (though i'm still @ IE8 fwiw). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. Please consider every single other syllable I am thinking or uttering currently to be swearing. AuFCL (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Right. This makes me feel quite nauseous, but does this\scriptstyle{\iota}← work everywhere, please? AuFCL (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Both work for me (FF 27.0.1, Vista). —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 04:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Both also work with (FF 27.0.1, Mac OS X Mavericks)--kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S also works with Mac Safari --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I see both of them (FF 24.3.0, Debian GNU/Linux sid). I think it probably better to use the right character and assume that it will be supported in the future then to stress about every system today, especially for a work that will take forever to process and has a limited but continuing appeal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I "see" the second example (IE8, XP-Pro) but its not being rotated 180 degrees in the rendering, leaving me with the expected greek small letter iota (U+03B9) instead of the faux desired turned greek small letter iota (U+2129). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Any help? The {{Unicode}} template was in the Symbols set of CharInsert all this time btw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely it helps!
O.K. Once more for the dummies (me.):
  • Does this mean →← works for everybody?
  • It should but only another survey would verify that. I'll start - works for (IE8, XP Pro) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Works here as well (FF 27.0.1, Vista Basic). —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 08:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (Responding to my own poll feels weird, but) I had an unexpected opportunity in my "other life" to have a quick look at these pages using bog-standard Internet Explorer 11. No problems with anything (symbols or rotations.) In fact it rendered more cleanly than it did under Firefox. Almost embarrassing! 10:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If I go back and enclose any "raw" character entity inside a {{Unicode}} invocation Internet Explorer will finally get into line with the other browsers and actually make use of the correct fonts?
  • Just for my own curiosity, I wonder if Internet Explorer correctly rotates this: →\scriptstyle{\iota}←—if so: time to consider updating {{rotate}}…
  • Not here (IE8, XP Pro). The version on WP explains why IE8 needs a LUA version for that to work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

(Aside/Rant—please feel free to generally ignore.) So the fonts were there all along? And not pulled in when needed? Why do we bother? Who writes sensible software any more? Pardon the sarcasm; but this seems to have been unnecessarily painful for such an apparently trivial issue. AuFCL (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. A "patch" for Unicode & IPA was added some time ago to common.js in order to get the {{Unicode}} template to at least do that under XP. And, again compare our outdated version to what WP uses - still not the latest & greatest if we go by them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: I decided instead to change my IE8's 'webpage font' selection in IE's settings to "Lucida Sans Unicode" and, lo-&-behold, even &#8489; (℩) renders properly now - no {{Unicode}} template or class definition needed, PLUS "sans-serif" (the wiki-code, load.php defined, default font) resumes being the "fall-back" core font being rendered just like it always has for me. This is OK by me until somebody comes up with a way to reproduce the same behavior I just did without altering IE's settings since this station is almost dedicated just to accessing wiki-whatever domains anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Das ist gut, ja! AuFCL (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Proofreading alignment issue[edit]

Is anyone else having problems proofreading texts? When I click on a red link, the page loads but the image and text box are not aligned as normal. The text box stretches the entire length of the page and the image is underneath it. I'm using the vector skin.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured it out. The column editing size in Preferences somehow got blown up to 80 columns for the text editor.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It only worked for one image. Now the problem is back. Is anyone else having this issue on Chrome?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Does hard-refreshing work? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I am going to really, really regret pointing this out, but you seem to have accurately described the behaviour resulting from checking Preferences/Editing option "Use horizontal layout when editing in the Page namespace." AuFCL (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's unchecked for me. I tried checking it, and I got a different layout, but one which was still possible to do proofreading. The behavior I'm having issues with is that the text box extends the entire width of the page, which pushes the image to be all the way below the text box, meaning I have to scroll down below the text box in order to see the picture, but then I can read the text unless I scroll all the way up. I wonder if there's a CSS issue on one of my pages that's messing with it...—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I looks like it's a Chrome issue. FireFox doesn't have the problem.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh well. Unfortunately I'm using F/F so my (lack of) observations can't help any further. Good luck and please let us know if you find the answer! AuFCL (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Zhaladshar: Could you please add here the work / page that you were having problems with? I am exploring various browsers (with the exception of IE), and have Chrome as well. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 17:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This page exemplifies my problem. However, I've noticed if I'm signed out, the proofreading extension displays just fine. I'm led to think there's either a preference or a CSS/JS issue with my account.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Pardon this thought: I can get a similar effect to that which you describe by fooling around with the "width" style within class "prp-page-content" (e.g. by setting it to pretty much anything larger than the default of 50%.) Now as you point out the issue goes away when you are logged out, have you considered (carefully) disabling, say, your Special:Mypage/vector.css or (less likely) Special:Mypage/vector.js and seeing if something in either of these affects the problem? (Obviously please restore configurations after the trial.) AuFCL (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If the above didn't correct the problem, then the settings may be stored in the cookies . . . as I have learned some time ago. Delete the cookies and create a fresh login.— Ineuw talk 19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Zhaladshar:Is this still happening in Chrome? For about an hour or so around midnight (my local time) precisely the same behaviour as you originally described was happening to me in Firefox... and then the problem went away all by itself. Was there another software upgrade? Right now it is [1.23wmf19 (bbbc0b8)] however I have no idea how to check how long this has been activated. AuFCL (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See the deployment Roadmap for that info. Although "we" weren't directly scheduled for "enhancements", changes elsewhere still can creep in and mess with us - especially cookie/caching wise. This has been going on for as long as I can remember but has become worse in the past couple of months. I managed to rectify some of this "weirdness" by localizing & tweaking the rest of the .js scripts previously loading from old.wikisource. That cut down on the amount of unneccessary cookie "refreshing" going on with anything related to the navigation sidebar (primarily under vector; stuff like Dynamic layouts' Display options, EPUB, BookMaker and similar gadgets that "build" additional menu choices in the sidebar).

It (MediaWiki:Base.js is still not perfect when it comes to "loading" & cookies -- and it might not have anything to do with the alignment issue at all -- but its the most obvious issue at the moment. The obvious test is to try loging in using some other 'puter but your own. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was aware of the Roadmap (and in fact checked it and the "mediawiki/core" list.) However I still don't know how to determine when (say) version bbbc0b8—which I assume is a git submission id?—was made active upon enWS. This may not even be a pertinent issue, and should be considered a most casual enquiry.

At the time the system malfunctioned for me I checked at least a subset of modifications (incidentally including Base.js; since you had mentioned it recently) and found no relevant changes whatsoever. This only confirms whatever did in fact change was outside of my normal "view" and in no way should be considered comprehensive. AuFCL (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL - Not too long ago, the "roll-out" of a new version was clearly marked in the log/tree with a small graphic banner like "Head" & "Master" currently are. For some reason that stopped working so the only thing I can point to is the switch in the naming of static bits normally changed during an upgrade & stored in your browser's cache. You'd look for the first instance of something like....'wmf20/extensions/blah blah bah
...for the "next" release. If we go by that (not proven), the bump up happened around 6 pm Eastern standard time (-4 hours behind UTC ?) on the 27th.

Here's an oddity- anyone have a cached cookie from the wikidata domain last-modified two months in the future from now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice technique. Obviously I hadn't thought of that before. My browser here first "sighted" 1.23wmf19 about 3½ days ago; and has not "seen" 1.23wmf20 at all yet; so on the strength of this those upgrades seem unrelated to this matter. (No apparent future dating; I won't install the "prescient" extension here until it pre-emptively passes the Turing test.) AuFCL (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL:, I restored my vector.js and vector.css and it seems the issue is now working. I am not sure why but I no longer have any problems. Thanks for the help.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tables broken in MULTIPLE works[edit]

I went to continue proofreading on a work and discovered that lines from a table were not transcluding.

The discovery was made at A History of Japanese Literature. The header for "BOOK THE FOURTH" is not transcluding in the table of contents, and neither is chapter VI. of BOOK THE SIXTH. These items used to appear in the transcluded table, but no longer do so.

I found the same problem at Chapter 3 of An Introduction to the Study of Fishes, where line item "67,68" does not transclude either.

In both instances, the problem is that the first table row from a page is not transcluding when a table spans multiple pages. Neither instance of this problem existed when I first set up the pages.

Has a change been made in the way tables must be formetted for transclusion when they span multiple pages? And does this mean we'll have to search our entire library for other instances in order to fix them? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the first of these. The {{nop}} was missing from the beginning of the page body on the second page. I've fixed that one. See Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so it has changed. The {{nop}} wasn't required before when I was setting up those pages. We may have to go back and correct a large number of works proofread before March 2013.
The {{nop}} creates an additional transclusion problem, however, as now the page number is not displayed to the left of the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: There is nothing new about needing a starting {{nop}}, it has been that way for many years to get MediaWiki to see the table component as a new line and table formatting. I am not sure how you have avoided that previously. I know that some used to avoid it by putting the new column starter on the end of the preceding page. If there are multiple works, you may find it more relates to your works, those that I have/seen edited should be okay, and I would think that for numbers of others it will be the same. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If you are having issues with nop which I haven't seen before, you can always try
|text text text ...

at the top of the body part, which is a workable solution and what I used to use before nop. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, if it's been that way for "many years", then why wasn't that information mentioned in Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks before last March? That's when an edit was made to insert the information. Either way, it doesn't solve the current problem of the missing page number links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The information to use nop has been there since InductiveLoad wrote the page in 2011. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It cannot be "fixed" as long as wiki-markup for tables is in use. Even with straight HTML, the proofreading page extension with transclusion won't allow an embedded page number to be inserted at the correct point (the begining of a new Page: rather than the end of the previous Page:). This behavior has been that way since I can remember. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Two pages per image[edit]

I uploaded from the Internet Archive a DjVu file which has two pages per image: Index:Casement Report.djvu. Does anybody know of an easy way to split each image into two so that there would be only one page per image? Thanks. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

TOC formatting help[edit]

Can I bug someone to format the first page of this TOC for me using a "simple" table as opposed to templates? and then I can copy the formatting for the remaining pages myself. I'm just not sure how to format the titles with Roman Numerals (indentation). The text has already been proofread. Sorry if the pre-wikilinking makes things messier and more complicated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Formatted the TOC but couldn't finish it because I ran out of steam. I can continue tomorrow if it's OK with you.
For anchors, I ALWAYS use the DjVu page number because they are unique! This is the most logical way (to me) and I don't need to think of what I did, and where. My anchors are always use this format: anchor=D32-1 The "D" is necessary because anchors must start with an alphabetic character, the number following indicates that it's on DjVu page number 32, and -1 indicates that it's the first anchor on the page. If there is more than one anchor on a page, as there are in this case, I number them sequentially as . . . D32-2, D32-3, . . . etc. The Roman numbers mentioned above are only for display, but the only true reference in the Page namespace are the DjVu numbers, in the main namespace the webpage names. — Ineuw talk 06:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for helping! I will be away from the computer for a bit as well. When I return, I have a couple comments/questions about your adjustments to formatting of the poetry. Till then, thanks much again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow! You have done the whole TOC... Thank you! With regard to adding {{Dhr}}, however, between stanzas... I use a double carriage instead. I don't plan on using Dhr with the rest of the work, for that is not how I have formatted the remaining 200+ pages so far, and I don't plan on changing every page/instance. For formatting uniformity's sake, I am considering removing the ones you have added, but I am hesitant thinking you might take it wrong... Also, I have been noincluding the rules, but I noticed you have re-included some of them. Again, for uniformity, I don't plan on including them for the remainder of the text (formatting decision since the separation between poems is not necessary for our page layouts like it perhaps was in the original), so I believe I will undo what you have done there as well. Hoping you won't mind, and thanks again for your help with the TOC; you have done more than I expected/asked, and it is much appreciated! I hadn't considered linking the page numbers to anchors; it seems more work than is necessary, since the poems are already linked to by their titles. So I'll have to add anchors from now on when proofreading then, right? Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I actually undo the anchoring system? I just don't feel it is necessary since sectioning is already used in the titles, and it is more (complicated) work (for me) than I would like to take on. Would you be offended since you already put in the work you had done? I won't ask you to make the changes... I can do it myself. Would you be too disappointed? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. First, you're most welcome and I apologize for the implemented, but unasked for changes. Please feel free to make any and all changes. Even I wasn't sure about all the anchors, with the possible exception of a few. The {{Dhr}} was used because I wasn't sure that you were aware of the template. It would be proper if I reverted the changes to save you from doing the extra work. — Ineuw talk 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I just feel bad with all the work you have done (which I do appreciate). I would carry on with anchors, etc. where you left off if I was feeling more ambitious, but alas!... I was aware of {{Dhr}} and have used it on certain occasions, just not between stanzas. I feel a double-carriage is sufficient (and easier!). But thank you! Don't worry about reverting anything for me; I don't mind going through the pages, as I have already taken note of which pages you have adjusted. No problems there! Again, thanks for the TOC formatting, and thanks for being gracious about any reversions/adjustments I might make with your work. I am always open to suggestions, however, even though I may be stubborn and set in my ways on occasion! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed all the Dhr and reverted the noincludes. I feel about my work in the same way, and appreciate your sense of consistency. When making the changes, I was also ready to revert them for that very reason.Face-smile.svg. Just as a qualification, I designed the {{Dhr}} because over a year ago, my work was edited and double rows were reverted to single rows. Having some knowledge of database storage, I assumed that they were removed because empty lines may contribute to data corruption. (To be certain, someone in the know would have to clarify this.) The anchors need only to be removed in the TOC, but they can stay in the text. This really depends on how you visualize the transcluded material - in case you want to place more than one poem on a page. Again, sorry for the unnecessary extra work.— Ineuw talk 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
You need not apologize. You made things easier for me, and I have learned some things to boot! All is appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: made it easy for me by establishing the basic indent structure, however I have just added a simple span to each of the (relevant, i.e. not all) Roman numerals to pull them into alignment more closely mirroring the book. I was a little surprised that an explicit width styling does not appear to be required when applied inside a table cell, but it most certainly is for standalone use. In case it is needed here is the (fuller) version:
<span style="display:inline-block;text-align:right;width:2em;>XVI</span>
N.B. Adjust "2em" above to be just wider than the longest number in the whole sequence; vary XVI as appropriate. Eggs. AuFCL (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, AuFCL. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Noticed this too late but I am ready to add a third column with right aligned text if you so desire. That's the only way I know how to resolve this issue.— Ineuw talk 02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Public General Statutes (1896)/Table VI[edit]

I have an unusal problem with this.

It previews Ok, but then doesn't render OK once saved.

Can someone please sanity check the transcluded pages and templates, to make sure I haven't overlooked something obvious? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done some work on the 1st table on top of the page, but I am not familiar with your coding style for the rest and it's best that I don't touch it.— Ineuw talk 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What titles to use?[edit]

I'm probably going to transcribe (eventually) Medical Inquiries and Observations, by Benjamin Rush. The problem is, the work is in 5 volumes, with each one having a different title. Should I create a separate page for each volume, or should I create one "master" page?--Frglz (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Because they are volumes of the same work, the preference would be have them under one main page with a sub-page for each volume. (See History of England (Froude) for an example of how this works.) By the way, I note that the links on the author page are to different editions. Best practice is to have all the volumes from the same edition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of questions from a new person.[edit]

A) When a document has stamps on it, how are those to be transcribed?

B) When a page is missing an image, is it okay to crop a copy of the scan and remove the background?A480641 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked through your contributions and the following reply is based on the pages you worked on:
By stamps, if you mean the library stamps, etc. - The answer is no. We don't copy them.
By missing image, if you are referring to the main page of the 1931 "The Highway code", (or any other image) - we try our best to use high resolution images because the .djvu image is very low resolution. If you can find a higher resolution image on the web and need help, send me the link and I will explain what can be done. FYI - most, but not all, of our documents & projects come from Internet Archive and they also have high resolution .JP2 versions of the same .djvu files. That's where we get our images from. In your case, the document comes from elsewhere, and that's why I recommend that you look for a higher resolution image. I hope this helps.— Ineuw talk 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Transclusion limits", etc.[edit]

Looking for advice on what to do about the TOC's (there are two sets) for the PotM. In the second set, to quote ShakespeareFan00, "The original format is in the early revision, but I went back to a simpler template formatting because the transclusion broke, due to the use of a lot of templates. Feel free to put the formatting back, but the transclusion limits will need to be looked into."

Question. Should the template formatting for all the TOC pages be simplified (that would mean changing 5 pages of TOC formatting), or can something be done about the "transclusion limits" for the two 'problematic' pages instead? This is beyond my ability. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The only way to come in under the limit is to reduce the overall amount of templates and/or per-template parameters being applied. I know the root of the problem there is most likely the "resource expensive" {{Dotted TOC page listing}} template but Shakes has embedded it in some custom cascading template scheme that I just cannot follow.

I did try to make a less "intensive" dot-leader template based on some previous testing done with the help & input of fellow contributors - its in Template:Td/dot/sandbox if that helps him any. Other than that, and if reducing the amount of overall template-mass at play does not solve the problem, it looks like you'll need to split Pt 1 and Pt 2 into separate sub-pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@GO3: Would it not just be 'simpler' to simplify the formatting? It might take me a while, but I could manage (tackle) it. It doesn't seem desirable at this point to split the Parts up (if I understand what you mean). @ShakespeareFan00: Do you have any objections to my simplifying the TOC pages, or do you want to follow some other course suggested by GO3? My opinion is to keep it simple, but that is because I am simple minded. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
No objections here & of course "simplifying it" is the easiest way to go. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
{{td/dot}} is where the problem arises... Simplify that template and thigns become easier. No objections to simplifications. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

1936 posthumous British text might still be copyright in the United States - please check[edit]

I am confused about the US copyright status of the English translation of the poem L'après-midi d'un faune by Bloomsbury Group artist Roger Fry. Would someone with clearer understanding of US law please review the tags I posted there, and come up with a suitable US tag? Although it became public domain in 1984, I think the URAA might have put it back in copyright in the US, and it may have to be taken down from Wikisource. --Hroðulf (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is complicated but British law might be the main problem rather than American. In 1995 UK statutory instrument SI 1995/3297 harmonised British copyright with Europe, which both extended the copyright period to 70 years pma and retroactively revived copyrights that had entered the public domain. So Fry's work The Poems of Mallarmé would have been in the public domain in 1985 but back under copyright from 1995 to 2005 in the UK and the rest of Europe. That's when the URAA becomes an issue. The URAA would only have brought the translation back into copyright if it was in copyright in its home country in 1996 (the URAA was the US response to the international community pressuring them to get into line on international copyright law, similar to the British SI). If it had been in the public domain in the UK in 1996, it would not have been affected by the URAA. However, as it had been brought back into copyright in the UK one year earlier, the URAA also brought it back into copyright in the US. Then a completely separate US law extended the copyright term to 95 years from publication, so it is probably still under copyright in the United States. The posthumous publication would have probably only affected the copyright if it had been published after 2004 (70 years pma). I'm not sure if I've got all of that right, so Im going to attach a {{copyvio}} and copy this thread to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Please note that the original French version is in the public domain so, if your French is up to it, a Wikisource translation is still possible. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Things have changed... need some help[edit]

Hi all! Things seem to have changed a lot since I was here last, and I'm having a bit of trouble. Perhaps I'm being a bit dense, but I am attempting to follow the instructions on Help:Adding_texts and other pages linked, and am having major issues. The Help pages lead me to believe that after having created Index:Address as the ABA president.pdf, I should be able to start entering text by going to, for example, Page:Address as the ABA president.pdf/3. All I'm getting is errors. I can't enter any text (only the edit summary box is coming up), and if I click on "Image", some background process seems to die. There's also no Button ocr.png button. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Storkk (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything you've done looks right. I'm afraid I can't tell what the problem is at the moment. There is a known problem with PDFs that affects Commons' thumbnail generator but the file appears to be working on Commons itself, so I don't think that's it (besides, that bug still generated the page image only without the words, which was weird). I also get an "Error generating thumbnail" message from the "Image" link:
Error creating thumbnail: /bin/bash: line 1: 24798 Done 'gs' '-sDEVICE=jpeg' '-sOutputFile=-' '-dFirstPage=3' '-dLastPage=3' '-r150' '-dBATCH' '-dNOPAUSE' '-q' '/tmp/localcopy_222d13c1788b-1.pdf'
24799 Killed | 'convert' '-depth' '8' '-resize' '3743' '-' '/tmp/transform_ee2e1b9e46a5-1.jpg'
The problem may lie with the Proofread Page extension. Someone with more knowledge of the software might be able to give you a better answer. It might even be worth a bug report.
I'm not sure about the OCR button; I never used it and it might have been removed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the problem with the thumbnails—for some reason the scan resolution had been set to 0. WRT the OCR button, the default is disabled. You can enable this through the gadgets in your Preferences. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, AdamBMorgan and Beeswaxcandle... it is working now. Wrapping my head around the "new" (ha!) way of doing this here is proving a little challenge, but the changes over the last seven years seem on the whole to be extremely positive. Thanks again, Storkk (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

On the use of long s[edit]

When a page uses a long s (ſ) (e.g. Page:Selected Orations Swedish Academy 1792.djvu/82 should I use the long s symbol or a normal s? A480641 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The {{long s}} (shortcut: {{ls}}) template will switch between them (displaying the long s in the page namespace and a normal s in the main namespace). The original idea was to provide a switch, so that the reader could choose between long or normal, but the code didn't work properly and it hasn't been implemented yet. In theory, in the future, someone will make that work and the template will be used as part of that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical scientific papers and monographs?[edit]

I'm a contributor to Wikiproject Paleontology on Wikipedia and I thought it would be cool if Wikisource could archive historical scientific papers and monographs about prehistoric life. However, while the introduction for new users refers to popular science articles, mention of the peer-reviewed literature is conspicuously absent. Does this reflect policy? Are technical works outside the scope of Wikisource or under a special copyright situtation that prevents their inclusion? Abyssal (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely in scope. We have examples, though not very many. For one example see Character and description of Kingia, wherein is articulated for the first time the fundamental division between angiosperms and gymnosperms. Hesperian 03:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! Nice to see a familiar face around here, too. Abyssal (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

An Index move/renaming help is asked for[edit]

This file Index:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican.djvu needs to be moved and renamed as Index:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, Vol 1.djvu because it's made up of two volumes. For this, the commons source file Commons:File:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican.djvu also needs to be moved/renamed. How this affects the WS Index is unknown to me, especially the order of renaming is my concern. I am also no clue as to how the move on WS affect the pages. The book is validated.

I would like to do it but need knowledgeable direction. Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You can move the Commons file and everything here will continue to work via the redirect. When you move the Index file, all the pages will break until they are moved too. You can post a Wikisource:Bot requests for someone to move all the pages. Hesperian 09:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information.— Ineuw talk 15:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Transcluded page is not linking to moved Index pages.[edit]

Cleared all caches that are user accessible, but this page still doesn't recognize the source index. Could someone please help? Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, Vol 1/Book I/Chapter 1 For my own knowledge, is this a cache issue, and if so, do users can manage this? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 23:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo in the Pages command line - its volume 1 (the number one) not volume I (capital letter i). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GO3.— Ineuw talk 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Revalidate Page:A Plea for the Middle Classes.djvu/22[edit]

Anyone? Nice quick task. Can't self validate for obvious reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 13:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Way back before i got to know about m-dashes I used {{bar|1}} a lot. Ideally these should be replaced. with m-dasheses, i.e "—" Any ideas on how to do this?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A replace bot can run; it should be about 600 pages (test edit).--Mpaa (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Mpaa (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


I'm in the process of slowly depreceating these over concerns about parser load.

The assistance of the regulars in re-engineering the tables using them would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Re validation request[edit]

Page:A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources.pdf/109 Had a stubborn URL that was making trouble. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Costly templatws[edit]

Found this one - Template:Table row 1dot-1 which needs to be replaced. 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And now deprecated and tagged for speedy deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Page:Bradshaw's Monthly (XVI).djvu/32 ‎[edit]

Table rowspans won't format as intended. Can someone beat mediawiki into submission please?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Edna W. Underwood has a collection of translations entitled Moons of Nippon, translations from poets of old Japan. Should the Wikisource page be Moons of Nippon, or Moons of Nippon, translations from poets of old Japan?--Frglz (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually just use the main title and only add the subtitle if needed for disambiguation. So, I suggest Moons of Nippon would be fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you.--Frglz (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert Fortune page[edit]

It would appear that a couple of the dates on this page could be suffering from a typo. The list appears to be in chronological order but from date of 1820 or so there is a jump to the 1850s or so. Can this be correct?


Good catch, Anne. Indeed the dates were incorrect. Fixed by @Clockery: -- DutchTreat (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Mac: Next time, you can try fixing typos like that yourself wink Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 04:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help with a TOC design problem.[edit]

In the process of adding wiki links to the TOC design OF THIS PAGE I found that the text often runs into the page number. Changing the font size and/or the column width fixes one paragraph but another gets messed up. I copied the first entry to THIS SANDBOX and ask if someone can suggest how to prevent this from happening.— Ineuw talk 03:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

One possible solution in two halves:
  1. Note you have used {{float right}} for page numbers. This is O.K. but may I suggest adding suitable margin-offset (parameters 2,3,4 are respectively: offest, top+bottom(combined) and left.) Recommend setting left margins to (say) 1em?
  2. Above half solution can itself cause vertical line collision effects. To counter this may I suggest separating each "paragraph"/sub-block with some variant of {{-}} to ensure proper clearing completes before next block begins?
I have added one possible layout method to your sandbox. If you find the paragraph marker usage too confusing then try substituting with {{clear}}s per above? AuFCL (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added a different solution to your sandbox without an explicit table. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting use of negative-right-offsets. Good idea! AuFCL (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of scientific paper[edit]

This work seems to be a public domain government document. Is it?--Frglz (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this PDF contains Google watermarks. Do the watermarks make the work non-PD, and so have to be removed, or can the PDF be used for transcribing even with the watermarks?--Frglz (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Index:Catalogue of books suitable for a popular library.djvu[edit]

Procedural request - rest this to red, some large scale format consistency issues have been raised.

The concern is to do with period(.) symbols in titles as passed to the templates.

It needs someone to check for every single [DELETED] period. :(

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not neccessarily simple, but what about scripting the template to check for trailing period in title? If it's there, print it but strip it from the link. If it's not there, put it in, but keep it stripped from the link. The Haz talk 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If you know how to do that feel free, otherwise someone needs to start adding them back..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Think I got it. Not familiar with all the use cases of that template so I'd appreciate if you took a look through the text and confirmed that you're getting the right outcome everywhere. Prosody (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Page:Catalogue_of_books_suitable_for_a_popular_library.djvu/19 - Titles here have periods which aren't being addedd (partly because I tweaked the template after User:Legofan94's concerns.). Please amend the template and documentation such that there is ONE consistent approach.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't even noticed that second condition (adding periods in the anchor text where there are none). That's a little tricky, because it looks like some titles end in question marks and shouldn't having periods added. Are there any other similar edge cases? Prosody (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Bracketed titles, and diambig titles.. (Although that's why I added the link param..}}ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Brackets are just normal square brackets, right? Can you give an example of a disambig title? Prosody (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) Bracketed titles are ones like Lorem Ipsum (Latinate Questions), a disambig title is where there a multiple detsinations for a given title, but only one is the specfic title desired for the link (which could be a red-link.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something, @ShakespeareFan00:, but the {{CBSPL entry}} template appears to allow you to put an alternate link for the title, but not for the author -- is that right? For example, the first author on Page:Catalogue of books suitable for a popular library.djvu/79 is listed as "C. C. Abbott". I have confirmed that this is actually Author:Charles Conrad Abbott, but I can't figure out how to fix the link.... Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
For an author were the name differs from the print verison use the a/d form of {{ci-author}} in the authorfield of the {{CBSPL entry}},
... I have no idea what that means, and {{Ci-author}} has no usage examples listed. Can you give an example to indicate what you mean? Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You might be on the wrong template page as I see two usage examples listed. On a related note, a great way to see a template in action is to go to the template page and click What links here on the sidebar under Tools. You'll find every page that it's used on (though technically if another template calls it you'll get those pages as well). So for this one, you might wish to see Page:Catalogue of books suitable for a popular library.djvu/13. I hope that helps! The Haz talk 14:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This good, @ShakespeareFan00:? Prosody (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, Haz, Prosody, Mukkakukaku This is particularly relevant for Catalogues, Is there any automated process for Wikilinking everything on a page? For example see Page:A Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (1869).djvu/10. Copy pasting the [[ ]] code 60 or so times is very time-consuming and can be better done by a bot/automation of some sort. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What I usually do -- and what I just did for the page you linked -- is dropping the text of the page into a text editor and using regular expressions to insert appropriate templating or links as needed. Fixing the sanscrit catalog page took about 30 seconds. Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Renewed application on Commons[edit]

Hi Wikisorcerers,

If you wish to support my admin's request on Commons (to go on protecting djvu and pdf files), you can find it here. Thanks if you can help. --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 09:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —Maury (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm very very grateful. Non-wikisorcerers did not see why we need these tools so these tools have not been given. Sorry to have been unable to explain things to them clearly enough, and renewed and warmest thanks to the supporters nonetheless. :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a very naughty post, and I have absolutely no sympathy for anybody caught out following these suggestions...
As I understand the discussion, one of your major critics was one Steinsplitter, and their opposition revolved around your not performing a quota of five sysop functions? So isn't the obvious answer for anyone facing a similar situation in future to block, then unblock, then block, then unblock, then block (STOP: five operations completed! Yay!)... Steinsplitter on Commons? You'd get my vote for hanging the pedantic sod by his own rules... AuFCL (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Google's present presentation (to AdamBMorgan, Erasmo, & anyone else creative & innovative)[edit]

I just saw Google's present Logo. It is very inspiring. It has thumbnails on each of its letters. Each thumbnail briefly shows a book image as it changes from a letter to the thumbnail image. Click on one of those thumbnails and the book is opened. I tried only the G and entered into a new world called Grapes of Wrath.

It was beautiful and innovative. Why cannot we have something similar on beloved WIKISOURCE? and on our front page. The transition from image to letter alone catches the eye of a passer-by. It is advanced in its effect! —Maury (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, I don't know how to do that. But you made me imagine a crossword where the words are book titles (we could also add the word "Wikisource")...--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Erasmo, I think we should do some brainstorming and come up with something that I have thought about and what your fertile young brain comes up with. You have wonderful abilities and a fertile imagination. Contact me via email if you are interested. —Maury (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Creating cover designs for WS is a personal interest of mine. Using book jackets with attractive color, stylish fonts and attention to layout may ease user navigation and improve readability. See samples of my User:DutchTreat/covers project. I started out doing a few covers for Rousseau to dabble with the idea. Wanted to see if there is merit in the approach. Recently I started working on a few for the Portal:Romanes Lecture. After I heard about the challenge of featuring so many volumes for the upcoming Featured Text in May 2014, I started turning my attention to that area. I noticed how Amazon featured covers when it announced their 100 best books a few month ago. The example you highlight from this week's Google Doodle is another indication that users will click on book covers to explore. Personally, I want our WS covers to appear non-commercial and lightweight to speed download. Many design trade-offs, but hopefully there is a place for more open-source graphics on our site. - DutchTreat (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I made a template based on your idea: {{cover}}. The following code:

{{cover|1|Author:George Gordon Byron|George Gordon|Byron|The Corsair (Byron, 1814)|The Corsair|1814}}

gives the following result:

George Gordon
The Corsair


If you also add the eighth parameter, its text will appear at the bottom of the cover.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Erasmo -- Thanks for making progress with the idea by introducing the template. I like it. I was moving more in the direction of higher fidelity via SVG (patterns, background images, etc.), but there are merits to your approach. Having an easy to use, plug-n-play cover generator should ease adopment. Good work! -- DutchTreat (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Call for project ideas: funding is available for community experiments[edit]

IEG key blue.png

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

Do you have an idea for a project that could improve your community? Individual Engagement Grants from the Wikimedia Foundation help support individuals and small teams to organize experiments for 6 months. You can get funding to try out your idea for online community organizing, outreach, tool-building, or research to help make Wikisource better. In March, we’re looking for new project proposals.

Examples of past Individual Engagement Grant projects:

Proposals are due by 31 March 2014. There are a number of ways to get involved!

Hope to have your participation,

--Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 19:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  • #5.43 (above) is a Project Idea that costs nothing. It could enhance en.wikisource. Will it happen? I seriously doubt it. —Maury (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If you really want to get nitpicky, it would cost something for software/web developers. The example above about the VisualEditor improvements included a grant for $4500 for developers. Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Mukkakukaku, I did not say, nor imply, that I really want to get "nitpicky". That's your thoughts. The area I cited above relates to something of simplicity that one of our volunteers here could handle. Have you forgotten that there are volunteers here with skills who do not charge for volunteer work? Neither is it about any need for "VisualEditor" and the money you show interest in. —Maury (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I get that Maury, but as a software developer I felt I should point out that what you're calling "simple" is actually not so. And this whole section is about money, so I don't really understand the point of the last part of your comment. Cheers. Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Mukkakukaku, I don't know if I want to debate you on this or just explain my thoughts further. I will simplify as advised by Ben Franklin. This whole area is not just *about money* although money is mentioned. All wiki areas are about *bettering wiki areas* including here. This space 5.46 is also about "Call for *project ideas*": (funding is available [if needed] for community experiments). Personally, I could care less about the money because I am retired and well-off. Now, let us try to get to the same thought level. My reference harkens back to 5.43 where I was trying to get an interest in what is stated there. It would be simple and cost nothing from wikimedia and yet enhance wikisource. More specifically my initial statements were about what Google had done. It is about using a program like .GIF (old program) Animator or Shockwave Flash to animate the letters of Google which can be done with wikisource. The letter "G" flicks to the letter "G" book entitled, Grapes of Wrath" Click on that animated letter to image and the entire book, Grapes of Wrath opens. It is a catch of the eye that leads to a book. Now consider doing similar with every letter in Google or better, WikiSource. Each animated .gif or shockwave flash letter in WikiSource does the same as Google did. Each animated Letter opens a book when it is clicked. Now, google and wikisource have only so many letters but consider animated images with letters from the books we do have. That is all I was thinking about. One would have to work out details, as Erasmo is so inclined, but it is not difficult. I applaud you as being a professional software developer, I sincerely do. I myself am far from that and I remember working on Internet when it started for people. I remember the first webpages. I was at U.Va. and on the Internet Technology Committee setting some of these (then) new things and I can prove that from an old FTP site that I still have a book on from about 1 years ago. Just ask for the link for proof. So you see the contrasts in our ages and education as technology has advanced over decades. There was never a school that taught what I did so long ago as there are "computer classes" in these modern times. However, your time will come too where what you do becomes decades old just as you will if you live that long. I mean no disrespect in all I have written. On the contrary, it is what I would liked to have had for learning and applying. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
i’d like to swap punch cards with you some time. don’t underestimate the power of some prize money to motivate the volunteers. pretty soon, the grant funds "managers" will pick among the ocean of ideas. progress comes to the team builders, not necessarily the coders. we also have to make these grant outputs and tools, sustainable and supported, instead of thrashing. mind you the prizes are less than minimum wage, but have to pay for the free beer somehow. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It’s not prize money. You get money to meet reasonable expenses for project that have some benefit. You are accountable for spending the money on the project. Jeepday (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
well, money is money. a grant proposal with hacker pay for wish list projects is prize money, with no contingency on results. the IEG accountability paperwork is perhaps responsible for the declining uptake. maybe they need a template, expedited process for the petty cash, not merely marketing their funding source at projects. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Money can be a filip. Without money some things won't get done. Be it to fund someone getting funding to travel to an institution to talk about scanning a repository's works where they could be valuable to our collections, etc. It was great for us to be notified and if someone has a great opportunity then please run with it and good luck. Being negative about an opportunity is not of high value. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelmina FitzClarence, Countess of Munster[edit]

When could we ever make a page for requested works and/or their authors just like one requests a particular entry at Wiktionary? (My reason for that idea is the 1896 collection of ghot stories, Ghostly Tales.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is Wikisource:Requested texts. However, a lot of Wikisourcers are doing their own thing and I don't know how often works are chosen from that page (except for the September Proofread of the Month task). You might make more progress if you started work on this yourself and asked for assistance from others. Either way, you can always start the author page first and set up any links you may need. If you have a scan, setting up an Index page would help a lot too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoa I didn't know that page existed!
On an unrelated note, I took a quick look through both IA and Google Books and was unable to find the text of Wilhelmina FitzClarence's "Ghostly Tales". I wasn't even able to find a hard copy of it on my continent, so I won't be able to help too much there. Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Now I wish the community portal gives the link to the Requested Texts page. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It does now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Years a Slave wins Best Picture[edit]

Proofreaders and validators welcome at Index:Twelve Years a Slave (1853).djvu, as I’d expect a bit of interest in this. Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Nice idea @Moondyne:billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to all concerned for fast tracking this. Moondyne (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-10[edit]

09:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Auto-generation of paragraph (pilcrow) markers message on my watchlist[edit]

Above has been on my watchlist for several weeks but there’s no option to mark as read or to hide. Can message be removed? Moondyne (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, done. Hesperian 04:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

British Chess Magazine[edit]

By chance, I came across some early issues of BCM and began looking around for copyright information. The Magazine is monthly, and has been running since 1881, making it the oldest periodical of its kind. Although I suspect some of the earliest issues are now in the PD, could someone better versed than I am at copyright issues look into the possibility that we might work on some of these? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide the link please?— Ineuw talk 05:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know both the original authors and the publisher have a copyright under British law. The publisher's copyright term is Publication+25 years. The authors' copyright terms, however, are the normal Life+70. You would need to check when each author (both text and any artwork) died to be sure that an issue is completely out of copyright. Some Victorian copyrights are still in force (H. G. Wells, for example, still is for another few years).
That said, Wikisource is in the United States, so anything published in 1922 or earlier is out of copyright. I'm not actually sure where you are in real life, so there might be an issue with you uploading a file from (for example) the UK to the Wikimedia server in the US, and possibly with reading or downloading it again the other way. (I'm not aware of any case law about that but it remains a possibility.) The actual hosting in the US would not be a problem, however. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Those that are pre-1923 then upload them here with {{PD-1923}}, not Commons, as it is possible that someone will complain about a random article, and that would just be a bureaucratic argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-11[edit]

09:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Conversions to redirects[edit]

When I convert an unindexed Mainspace page (example) into a redirect to an indexed version, what should I do (if anything) with the Talk page/info? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

First point, you should be moving existing, non-indexed content to the expected pagename or sub-pagename that is to replace the content by transclusion-supported content before you actually "blank" the old with it's new, pages-command transcluded replacement content. That way, the entire history is preserved @ the new & supported article title. Converting the content to a redirect leaves the article-history up to that "point of blanking" stranded under the redirected title.

As for talkpages, first created along with the non-index supported content, they should be marked for speedy deletion if they contain no relevant info (i.e. just a textinfo template and the like) that pertains to the new content @ the new page (or sub-page) name after the move has been made. Otherwise both the old, redirected talkpage title and the new, irrelevant, post-move talkpage title should be marked for speedy deletion. — George Orwell III (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct? Immortality Talk Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply...

Yes. That is exactly what I was hoping to convey to you in the above. I'll just add one more thing -- personally, I think the best practice is that any related disambig pages, Author: works lists or similar should point to the new target page rather than the old redirect whenever possible. This, however, is ultimately up to the User: -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Society Library in London are looking for a collaboration[edit]

The library at the Royal Society in London are interested in doing something related to any item in their library, in particular something to do with items in their unique collections of manuscripts, personal papers, and other material. They are thinking of items that might be good targets, but any suggestions anyone else has would be very welcome. This might be in conjunction with Wikipedia (for an article), or not. Please let me know on my talk page on Wikipedia - [39]. Thanks! Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed optional changes to Terms of Use amendment[edit]

Hello all, in response to some community comments in the discussion on the amendment to the Terms of Use on undisclosed paid editing, we have prepared two optional changes. Please read about these optional changes on Meta wiki and share your comments. If you can (and this is a non english project), please translate this announcement. Thanks! Slaporte (WMF) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You can now access the data on Wikidata[edit]

Hey folks,

We have just enabled data access to Wikidata for Wikisource (except old-wikisource). This means you can now access data like the date of birth of an author or the ISBN of a book. You can do this in two ways. The first one is a parser function. You can use it like {{#property:capital}} or {{#property:P36}}. The second one is Lua. The documentation for that is at mw:Extension:WikibaseClient/Lua

If you have any questions you will find help at d:Wikidata:Wikisource and its talk page.

I hope you'll use this to do some kick-ass things on Wikisource ;-)

Cheers Lydia Pintscher 19:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow, a sabot in the machinery--KLINKITY-KLINK, rattle-rattle, no-whir, silence!

Revert to plain vanilla text (ascii).

I looked at the above including the links and that below and wonder what the heck is it all about for the average lay person. I have been busy editing books and have not kept up with "kick-ass" codes for books and images. So, what is the latest thingamuhjig kick-ass do for editors of books? Will it pull in books to WS and edit and transclude them? I am just wondering about what is so "kick-ass" in what I looked over. Headed back to sensible editing of books so there will be a wikisource books for some to play with "kick-ass" codes. What's it all about "kick-ass" Alpha? —Maury (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well how to put it all in perspective?
Imagine there is this author who you have taken great pains in researching.
Realising that the person concerned was a bit of a rascal, a 'character' if you will, you realise after careful consideration that it is impossible to tie down their birth-year (they never were too straight about 'official inquiries'.)
So instead of filling out Author/birthyear (because for argument you have three different possible years: 1862, 1863 or 1866 for example) and instead have carefully recorded a note to that effect and used the freer-form Author/dates instead…
Got the image of this circumstance in mind? Well now WD has come along and extracted what it wants from existing records (it doesn't bother with free-form notes or that vague 'dates' thing you understand -- the machine only accepts pristine data) you may now have the pleasure of having a machine tell you -- confidently -- that that particular author was never born at all (Incidentally, you ignorant peasant you—do not Question the wisdom™ of the Machine.)
Oh, and also start to picture your little computer nook plastered with Think banners, and the toilet flushing itself automatically every 20 minutes. Or is this getting just a little too (Blue) corporate? AuFCL (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

[((Incidentally, you ignorant peasant you—do not Question the wisdom™ of the Machine.)]

Always question, don't you watch the Science Channel? "the Machine" has been known to have moth of a bug since the beginning and now it often has bugs of all kinds -- that's "bugs" (plural). Apple products suffered from this very recently.

[Or is this getting just a little too (Blue) corporate?] I think it is good enough for your government job, agent (blue), or any of the other agents because blue isn't the only one of the "rainbow agents" such as agent orange), especially you flushing your toil-et so often. I myself wouldn't go near it because I don't trust the government that far. It always has too much overflow, especially in human blood, that harms "We The People" who are always kept in a war. It's a military tactic under the government to always keep an alert military for the people back home. You cannot just allow an army to sit around and become rusty. Have a bloody good day —Maury (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Authority Control template works now[edit]

See the old (current) and the alternative (sandbox) based on Wikipedia's approach in practice at the bottom of Author:Edward_Augustus_Freeman#Works_about_Freeman

We probably still need to add/remove some databases so we should probably take care of that prior to proposing a switch from old to new. Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My view is that 1. a Wikidata bot should import in Wikidata databases available in Wikisource Author pages and not in Wikidata; 2. a bot should replace VIAF=nnn in our Author pages with {{#property:Pxxx}}, fetching VIAF info from Wikidata.--Mpaa (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean "import in Wikidata ... and not in Wikidata". However, I think we should go ahead with the alternative version (with some fiddling to match our aesthetics and possibly some other functions. I've read through, but haven't seriously examined every line of, the code; I don't know it this does already but it's possible to locally override Wikidata in any other use, I think being able to do so in this template should remedy most objections. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I meant: port to Wikidata info not available there yet, but available here instead; and after that, fetch data from there.--Mpaa (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea why but the automatic filling in of birth year and death year is not working for me (See also this). I tried with the red link Author:Edmond Herbert Grove-Hills. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Does not work for me as well.--Mpaa (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
That's javascript reading data from Wikipedia's API and not (currently) Wikidata's. I confirm that it isn't working for me but, as I only barely understand either javascript or APIs, I can't tell why. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yet another gadgets no longer working (HotCat being another ...)--Mpaa (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

??? Since when does the Authority Control template import birth and death years? I've only seen it pull the various national library codes assigned to specific works or people. please start another discussion for the gadget. Its clear that the gadget has not been "maintained" for some time now never mind during the recent Wikidata port over changes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. Confusion over sub-discussion regarding idea for {{author}} to populate non-local values from wikidata? Also a good idea to apply similar logic to authority control and/or integrate the two of them. (Does anybody know of an application of {{authority control}} except within {{author}}?) AuFCL (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
There are only a handful of cases where specific works have AC data associated with them - which is sad in its own way since works are frequently keys to filling out author info and vise versa.

There are a couple of things that need to be addressed now that pulling data is possible and that means addressing templates like plain sister and author in addition to authority control. For instance, our author template is based only on the birth & death year whereas wikidata stores birth (#property:P569) & death (#property:P570) dates -- that means month, day & year whenever established. Our Author template would "kick" such dates as an invalid parameter while displaying the full month, day & year at the same time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Mpaa's approach however - making sure what we've currently built up as a database re: AuthControl template parameters are imported into Wikidata first and once that is done, then let Wikidata fill in what we still have missing.

PS. - See Ineuw for his dealings with HotCat failing above. Drop me note if you still can't figure it out. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The whole purpose of the Wikidata is that we don't add data here, just a reference to it another site. Having just the template {{authority control}} on a page with zero parameters should be enough. In time, we should be able to build in other components like birth year, death year, images, WP links, etc., and just have these by blind parameters within {{author}}. The purpose is to make life easier, and to edit one place with the hard data. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose to update Authority Control[edit]

I propose that we move to the authority control mechanics where the presence of the template alone is sufficient to call the wikidata for the item. If I am running AC data at WD, I don't see the need to run it again here. The discussion for me is which form of the template do we want? Traditional: {{authority control}}

WP-like {{authority control/sandbox}}

My (lazy) thought is to just go with WP-like as that makes updating easier. If we want our existing view, then we should look to split out the css, and the code so it is easier to update in time. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The current AC template has entities (ids [or source sites]) that the sandbox version does not recognize and vise vera. Since the sandbox version (primarily a copy of the current Wikipedia version) is based in Lua, somebody familar with Lua needs to reconcile the old with new and finally compare the newly compiled list of possible identities to what Wikidata actually holds (property# wise) at the moment as well. Until then, we are pretty much wasting our time by "importing" less-than-complete authority info be it surped from Wikipedia, from Commons or from Wikidata itself or, once again, vise versa. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an individual where there is a discrepancy? I am presuming that we are talking design and range of outward links, rather than a data issue. The authority data can be more easily added at WD than here, and if you need a script for there, then poke into d:User:Billinghurst/common.js for the script that you need. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Our current authority control is a merger of three authority control templates from Wikipedia and Commons (as they were at that time) and includes more than just author-related authorities, including LCCN, OCLC, ISBN, ARC etc. That's probably going to be an issue here. Wikidata doesn't list all of these, but it does have some we don't (in either the current or sandbox version). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
NB: ARC appears to be on the Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control page, so it will probably be available eventually. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The example is the same as it was at the begining of this overall section -- Author:Edward_Augustus_Freeman#Works_about_Freeman. I surmise most of us are still missing a key point; thanks to LUA, the sandbox template can pull all the existing entities with just the VIAF indenties (much like the gadget would but on its own). So we need somebody fluent in LUA to modify/expand the sandbox's Module:Authority control to reflect acomplete listing all round.

Internet Archive is just one entity that the current AC template has, Wikidata has assigned a property# for but the new sandbox template does not list (recognize). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is bordering on cargo cult programming but I think I can do this. I've just added support for the Chinese CALIS authority control, which is neither in the current authority control template nor the en.wp version. You can see it in action with Author:Deng Xiaoping or Author:Confucius. Does that work for everyone else? If so, adding a new code seems to just require (1) a linking function, and (2) adding a link for it in the big block under the comment that starts "In this order:". I'm pretty sure I can go through the other possible codes if this hasn't caused a problem. (On the other hand, I'm still not sure how to make it look like our current authority control template but, if no one else solves it, I'll try to figure that out too.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought as much; Nice Job! CALIS is coming through here A-OK. I don't know how many entities we should be displaying however though I fully agree that tracking as many as possible would provide the most accurate of information possible. Also, I'd like to see WorldCat displayed very last if possible - otherwise the "order of display" should mirror the existing as much as practical imo.

As for the template's formatting, I'm in favor of moderate tweaks, if any, to the sandbox's current rendering for the only reason that it keeps us "close" to what WP & Commons have - making maintenance & upgrades easier to apply in the future. Otherwise I'm against keeping/matching the current rendering. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Any authority additions that we make to our template, we should be replicating into enWP's version. Keeping them aligned has real value, and is well-able to be argued as reasonable and practicable. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't you mean all domains should at least mirror the entities that can be tracked and pulled from VIAF before trying to mirror what wikidata recognizes in addition to what VIAF normally has? This wikidata authority control gadget seems to have the full list of source-info entities properly assigned a property# value & assume will be recognized if detected. I think THAT many sources is way beyond what works best for us per namespace in question vs Commons' needs the same vs. Wikipedia's needs the same, no? -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Keeping the new rendering is fine: not doing stuff is easier than doing stuff. I'll try moving the WorldCat link and adding other authorities later. I will try for as much as Wikidata can support and then we can prune the list to just the ones we want later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have added 23 additional items based on the existing template and browsing Wikdata's properties. Some of these are only relevant to works (see Twelve Years a Slave for an example) and should not show up on an author page. There will be more to add later, as Wikidata adds more on their side. I may have also missed a few on Wikidata (I noticed a few were not properly documented). We can start pruning now; I haven't tried but simply commenting out the ones we don't want to use should work and will leave them there in case we change our minds. I also figured out how to move the WorldCat link to the end. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There might be a problem but it will be rare and manageable. In the non-Lua template the code could, for example, use either LCCN or LCCNbook or LCCNid, as appropriate, to switch between author or work control. I'm not sure how to do that in Lua. I say rare as this only really affects instances of the template in the main namespace (where the Lua module will try to link LCCN to an author rather than a work) and it is not currently used often in that namespace. (I'm afraid I didn't realise this right away as I didn't realise what part of the code was doing at first.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple IsLinkedToWikidata function[edit]

I thought this would be a simple task with which to start using Wikidata but I'm getting nowhere. I wanted to just return the item ID (Q number) of the attached data item, so I could (trivially) automatically fill plain sister and (more importantly) populate tracking categories such as Category:Author pages linking to Wikidata or Category:Author pages not linking to Wikidata. We could then use the tracking categories more flexibly than Special:UnconnectedPages. Does anyone know how to do this? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but why wouldn't you do this in a similar fashion to the (say) Wikipedia link tracking categories, currently implemented by this fragment near the bottom of {{author}}:
{{#if:{{{wikipedia|}}}|[[Category:Author pages linking to Wikipedia]]|[[Category:Author pages not linking to Wikipedia]]}}

with the obvious substitutions giving:

{{#if:{{{wikidata|}}}|[[Category:Author pages linking to Wikidata]]|[[Category:Author pages not linking to Wikidata]]}}
Surely testing whether the link contents starts with an actual "Q" would be needless overkill? Its presence or absence should be quite sufficient surely? AuFCL (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not the "Q" that's a problem. I don't want to manually enter the number at all; I want the author header to automatically fill that in depending on whether or not the page is connected to a Wikidata item. As it happens, the next task I wanted to try was for the header to automatically pick up the Wikipedia link from Wikidata (as well as Wikivoyage and Commons) but I'm not sure if that is possible either and I've already fallen at the first hurdle. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I observed much the same when looking over the AC template & related modules. The nuance is much of the "coding" doesn't refer to Wikidata but the term wikibase instead. So the issue with the above is probably due to detecting the wrong type or name of some string typically generated by the MediWiki namespace (MW messages, etc.) Fwiw, these are the simple LUA cals to invoke the generation of the "Q" id, label and page...



Project:Village pump



I tried adding the call to generate the id to {{Plain sister}} but I don't know if that was wise or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: The mediawiki extension module which implements the Wikidata interfaces is called "wikibase." Perhaps this explains the confusion a little? AuFCL (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I really meant mw:Extension:Wikibase Repository, but the other link may be of benefit as well. AuFCL (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what I needed, thanks. I've added that to {{Author}} directly (which is the only related edit I mean to make directly to any template without discussion, FYI). Please see Category:Author pages connected to Wikidata and Category:Author pages not connected to Wikidata. Adding a call to plain sister is great, that's part of what I planned to do next. If I manage to scrape together enough time I think I can make automatic sister links for the three other connected projects; assuming my programming is up to it. One thing that will have to be amended is the call to plain sister in the first place: it is only activated if one of the sister link properties are used in the header. If everything is automatic, and the call is left as it is, the links may never be shown. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
ABM, have a look at this edit. The information about how to do this at WD is simply crap, and something about which I give them continuous criticism. Tehre is so much more that can and should be done to get it all used properly — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) That looks good, although I might amend a few bits like the dates. I was going to try working on this with the {{author/sandbox}}. I think some functions will have to be moved to Lua eventually (or would be best there) and they are called more than once and it would be more efficient to use a variable to store the data rather than query Wikidata each time. Still, we can start with what we've got and move functions later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've converted the French Wikisource interproject template in Lua (see this module). I believe it should be easily reusable for the Plain sister template. Feel free to ping me on IRC (or on my talk page) if you need some help with Wikidata/Lua. Tpt (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've migrated the part of {{Plain sister}} that manage sister project links to a Lua module that uses Wikdiata as fallback for Wikipedia, Wikivoyage and Commons links. Please revert if I've made any mistakes. Tpt (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons' VIAF data-importer now available[edit]

... but needs some love to become optimal.

After "toying" with both our version and Commons' version of the VIAF data-importer gadgets, it became clear the Commons version is superior to our's so I copied it (MediaWiki:Gadget-VIAFDataImporter.js & MediaWiki:VIAFDataImporter.js) to Wikisource as the first step on the route to replacing our version MediaWiki:Gadget-addViafData.js

After managing to un-cripple the new gadget enough to run based on our namespaces & not the ones on commons, one issue became paramount...

  • The current Authority Control template needs to be replaced with the LUA based variant being used on Wikipedia & Commons asap. It seems in order for wikidata to completely "surp" all the info we already have in place on-the-fly here on en.WS and vise-versa, we need to match the scheme already in place.

At the same time, the new gadget needs an expert to make it fully Wikisource compatible. I already left a note with User:Inductiveload but I figure the more eyes looking into this, the better. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

fqm vs. shift left[edit]

Is {{fqm}} the 'new' {{shift left}}? See [40]. Wondering which I should use from now on, because I use shift left a lot with poetry. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I am getting educated on this. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Aid to linking authors to Wikidata[edit]

If anyone is interested in project maintenance and linking up with Wikidata, I've created this page: Wikisource:Wikidata/Wikipedia authors Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Wikidata/Wikipedia authors. It lists up to 300 author pages that are unconnected with Wikidata but have a Wikipedia link. This is meant to work on the assumption that most Wikipedia articles already have a Wikidata item, so it should be relatively easy to find that item via Wikipedia and just connect it to Wikisource too. Not all Wikipedia items have data items, however, and some of the Wikipedia links appear to be invalid, but it tends to be good enough most of the time. About 5,000 authors (roughly one third) are not currently connected to Wikidata and this should help find the low-hanging fruit in that number. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. Very useful. There are a few false positives for WP links, but makes the task more focused. I'm thinking that it would be helpful to have a chart showing the progress over time. We won't be done in one month. The chart may help keep up the energy toward closing the gaps. --- DutchTreat (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I started a table to collect progress data at Wikisource_talk:Maintenance_of_the_Month#Marking_Progress_on_Wikidata_Integration. I welcome input or changes from anyone. There could be a better page to keep this data outside of the discussion page, so your thoughts? -- DutchTreat (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@DutchTreat:It think that it would be worthwhile looking to start a Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Wikidata page at least as either a central place for WD-related maintenance tasksif not the full listing of tasks, though probably works well for a place for WDians to collect, and to drop jobs. We can reverse link to it at d:Wikidata/Wikisource or a subsidiary page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for the suggestion. I started the page. - DutchTreat (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the list mentioned above to the MotM page to group everything in one place (there are only 2 names left on it anyway; we've cleared a few hundred authors already). I've also made some new lists that might help clear new batches of authors, for some non-anglophone authors, Popular Science Monthly authors, and authors with authority control. These sets will probably require a lot of new data items, however. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@User:AdamBMorgan: Thanks for these pages! They're very helpful, and they break things up nicely so it doesn't feel like you're tackling 4000+ items. Tertiaryresources (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad they're useful. I've also just added a Wikidata search link to unconnected author pages, which might make this part of the process slightly easier. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw... these three cats are derived from Template:Authority control. Again, can someone please run a bot on Wikidata to import the VIAF data we have researched and added manually before its lost to one of the other routines that may or may not be made thru an equivalent manual input. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added {{authority control}} without parameters when: 1. no authority control was present on WS, 2. VIAF was present on WD, getting what was available for free. I do not think it is needed to fix such cases, we should just rely on WD. Not sure if you meant that we should fix this status though ...--Mpaa (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
All that does is pull the VIAF id with the most "matches" and populates any others associated with that id from that point. More often than not, this VIAF is the desired one by happenstance; otherwise all we've accomplished is furthering the wrong info. The AC template should have at at least one verified major parameter input by hand (VIAF ranked at the top of course). -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
One comment on this last category. Mismatch is quite tricky. In some cases, Wikidata has more than one VIAF entry (all valid) and sometimes a VIAF entry is automatically redirected to another VIAF, so the mismatch is only apparent. See for example wikidata:Q473421 and Author:Dinarchus. Not really sure what to do in such cases.--Mpaa (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
For cases with false-positive due to multiple IDs: Find the addition of (1) the claim for an previously added item and (2) the addition of the item (extra VIAF id in this case) itself in the WD article's history and undo each pair until only ONE VIAF remains.

Automatic redirects/reassignments are not desired. Only "good" VIAFs have ISNI test-supported ids btw. And it is not our job to prune or compile multiple ids pointing to the "same" person or entity on VIAF; our [stored] singularity speaks volumes when it comes to resolving these. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

But multiple IDs might be legitimate as long as VIAF org does not merge clusters into one single entry. And I am not sure on how Wikidata bots work. Will they learn from errors? Or will same same bots will run again and again and re-add the same information once again?--Mpaa (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not how I understand it. Authority data should be singular per person, place or thing as far as I'm concerned (ala Library of Congress). The fact there are many ids in flux or have multiple entries is a symptom of progress towards ultimate verification. I guess we'll just have to muddle along until some rationale is made universal. Nevertheless, I don't believe applying the AC template for the sake of applying the template without a single verified resource is worth the trouble -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Most of the VIAF data are imported from other wikipedias/wikisources, i.e. a certain level of reliability might be, safely enough, assumed. I do not think it is either our data or nothing. Showing that data is IMHO better than nothing. If it is wrong, well, it can always be fixed. I bet that not all VIAF info on WS are correct either, same as not all wikipedia links are correct, birth dates and so on ... With the help of the Categories above, blurry ares can always be spotted and analyzed if deemed necessary.--Mpaa (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
??? You seem to be confusing the functionality of the Authority Control templates, modules and scripts (now with Wikidata & Wikibase acting as everybody's hub) with the consortium behind VIAF -- which is made up of LC, DNB, BnF, and OCLC starting in 1998. Only these 4 sources matter in the grand scheme of things for us right now -- moving us & everybody else toward the ISO 27729 standard (ISNI = International Standard Name Identifier (ISO 27729)) in the future.

Everything went to pieces when DNB (German national library) revamped their database and deprecated their BND ids for GND ones - causing the bot creation of a bunch of false positives and duplicate entries in all the other authorities out there - including VIAF - as a result. This is why manually selecting the "best" entry for at least the VIAF id is key afaict. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything. What I meant is that what you say should be done manually here has (probably?) been done already on some other wikis. And that those data have been used to populate the wikidata property P214 for a given author. So the P214 value in wikidata for an author might be OK to use, if we have nothing here. Nothing more. But this discussion is becoming moot, so nevermind.--Mpaa (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
No this is kind of important - others seem to be of like mind.

Look, even the add-Viaf-gadget ignores an existing {{tl|authority control} template -- even though it may be displaying a few authority entities with id #s in view mode but has no existing [manual/gadget/bot] parameters [entities w/ids] in edit mode. The gadget will add a 2nd {{authority control}} template that is populated upon gadget execution & save. Its the same when "outsiders" and their gadget-equivalents are used on en.WS

So I'm not saying ignore wikidata - just add & save at least something to the AC template. Otherwise, it can't be properly polled and modified (if need be) when the entity (or wikidata) "looks" to see what we have at any given moment. Just copy the "unverified" VIAF string from lord-knows-where its being pulled from & displayed for us in view mode manually if you can't be bothered with [re]verifying it (or use the Gadget to do that). -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. Since the "no arguments" version of {{authority control}} popped up, in cases where I have noted missing references I have updated Wikidata directly (i.e. no edit at all on WikiSource; e.g. Author:Alice Bolingbroke Woodward/d:Q4725732.) Are you saying that author edits must be either:
  1. performed in two places—on either wiki—which is wasteful and error-prone; or
  2. performed purely locally on enWS, which relies upon the whims of the next robot run—and raises all sorts of ambiguity ("the VIAF reference I found is less/more trustworthy than the one somebody else found") issues.
—unless these sort of issues become better clarified I am concerned the whole Author: space model will rapidly become a complete farce. AuFCL (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much the way I see it. The idea nobody seem to grasp was for Wikidata to import all the authorities we've collected per author prior to attaching 'instances of' that author (found on Wikisource) to their database and let that id info filter through the machine awhile. They just went ahead and added our author names (along with anything else #proprties were in place for) making most of what we had a 'secondary source'. Having witnessed all the hard work folks have put into making the Author: namespace as robust & accurate as possible; I'd trust our data over most Wikipedia article's data without question. Too late now.

Moving forward, say we expand an author's initials to a full name here on ws - sure Wikidata needs then to point to the new Author article and not the redirect - but how would VIAF et al. eventually get that "additional" info? The up-down stream is broken because only one side has any 'anchor' to ping off of and then realize something has changed (e.g. middle initial to a middle-name) when the robots gott around to it. Thats why adding authority control data must be in pairs - one is the authority entity w/ id# itself - the other is the instance of the declared source supporting (the claim) to the id's association (German Wikipedia, French Wikisource, and the like)

Right now, the only way Viaf & crew has any chance of slurping our "original research" is if Wikipedia's article mirrors our authority control data - not article titles or naming conventions (Not Likely). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. At least I am more in synch. now with your thinking. Every other issue is (language carefully chosen for accuracy not diplomacy here) bloody depressing. AuFCL (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Not all is lost. Before all this Authority/wikidata jazz, "we" thought to make micro/meta data part of the normal header & author templates to serve as a repository of useful & verifiable info one day & that is all still there...
<div id="ws-data" class="vcard ws-noexport" style="display:none; speak:none;"><span id="ws-article-id">1596501</span><span id="ws-wikibase-id">Q4725732</span><span id="ws-name" class="fn">Alice Bolingbroke Woodward</span><span class="n"><span class="given-name">Alice Bolingbroke</span><span class="family-name">Woodward</span></span><span id="ws-key">Woodward,_Alice Bolingbroke</span><span id="ws-birthdate" class="bday">1862</span><span id="ws-deathdate" class="dday">1951</span><span id="ws-wikipedia">Alice B. Woodward</span><span id="ws-description" class="label">English illustrator</span></div>
...see? -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So for authors in Wikisource where the VIAF data is pointing to the less popular/authoritative of two VIAF records, should we edit the Wikisource page to point to the more popular/authoritative record instead? I'm looking at Author:Herod the Great d:Q51672 as an example. Tertiaryresources (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tertiaryresources: -- A clear screw-up; a bot imported an additional [weak] VIAF id with only 1 authority to support it. If you go to the article history on Wikidata, you can "undo" [remove] this useless addition by 1st removing [undoing] the reference to claim followed by the addition [creation] of the claim. This will leave you with the single VIAF entry pointing to the "popular" (authoritive) id#.

Here on wikisource, you must amend the AC template to point to said VIAF id & just that VIAF id. It will still show all sorts of associated authorities (we don't care about them since they were surped via the "bad" VIAF id most likely). Only time (robot runs) will re-align the data based on the new & accurate ID. Since that has been manually amended by one of us here on en.WS, the new new & correct associations (if any) will eventually appear here (& on wikidata in theory) in the authoriy control template. <Note: I did this already for Herod the Great as an example, please review article histories/diffs here and @ wikidata>

The real issue in this example begins with the great being applied as a proper last name. If anything, this Author: article should have been title Herod I or Herod (the Great) but I'm not quite sure how we've been handling people like Herod who lived long before the arrival of the printing press. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@George Orwell III:Thanks, this is helpful! I also found a spot to report problems with VIAF records, which is the real root of this problem -- w:Wikipedia:VIAF/errors#Parallel_VIAF_clusters_for_one_identity Tertiaryresources (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to underline that in my mind {{authority control}} with no other info means:

  • look, we have not verified anything here, we just display what's on wikidata. If your bots try to scrape something, there is nothing reliable here ...
  • if we added any "unverified" VIAF string to the template, a WD bot might think: wow, they have some good data there, let's use it as source in wikidata as well, just reenforcing the "unverified" source loop.

That is why I would not add a parameter, unless locally verified here.--Mpaa (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It seemed worth making official, permanent note of this, so I have added sections on both {{authority control}} and Wikisource:Authority control. Please amend and correct as appropriate. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-12[edit]

07:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the PDF generator broken again?[edit]

Following a comment posted here, it looks like the PDF generator is not recognising transcluded text. Again. I've tested this with a few random texts. Before I take it to bugzilla, can someone else confirm this is a general problem and not just me? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Verified -- No matter how I approached the prospect of "printing" to a PDF file, -- both 'Save as ...' as well as directly opened to a browser -- it processed all the way through but the PDF was empty except for the title and some WS footer info. Might this have something to do with Inductiveload's ToolLabs account being closed for what appears to be inactivity (if I'm looking at the right script n' stuff that is)? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Index:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu[edit]

The first half of this The table is now Transcribed, I would appreciated some eyes proofreading.

Any volunteers for the second part, The Index?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Add authority control gadget security block[edit]

Hi. With Firefox 27 I get the following error:

Rather than allow mixed content in the browser (there must be a reason if by default is blocked ...), shouldn't the gadget use https instead?--Mpaa (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I switched the 'AutoSuggest' call to https and no more mixed content bangs in IE - should be the same for you now too. Still, I hope Inductiveload comes around soon. The gadget could use a "refresh" considering all the deprecated modules & junk over the last 3 years since the script was really revised. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Its OK now. Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-13[edit]

18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Translate English to English?[edit]

says that Constance Garnett was the translator. Since this is by an English author about an English subject, it seems a little odd. Reasonable to remove the name? Rich Farmbrough, 05:18 26 March 2014 (GMT)

I can't see why Garnett would have been involved with this work particularly as she was 19 at the time of publication and studying at Newnham College (Cambridge). Go ahead and remove her name from throughout this work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Tis done. Rich Farmbrough, 04:40 29 March 2014 (GMT)

Wikidata search link on unconnected Author pages[edit]

This is just a quick note that I have added a new element to {{plain sister}} that should be displaying a special link to Wikidata's search function for all unconnected Author pages. This should not be appearing in any other namespace so, if it does, can you mention it here. I've tested this, both in my sandboxes and live, and I cannot find any bugs or errors caused by this. However, if anything does go wrong, again, can you mention it here. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Authority Control, VIAF, and pseudonyms[edit]

Hi folks. I just ran across a problem while working on cleaning up VIAF mismatches. Author:Isaac Asimov (VIAF) used the pseudonym Paul French (VIAF) for some of his works. VIAF lists this pseudonym record as a "related name" to the main name record (the pseudonym has its own ISNI number) -- but it's not clear that this is universally the way that VIAF and ISNI handle pseudonyms (see slides 16 & 17). My question is this: Should I put an additional authority control template on the Author:Isaac Asimov page with the pseudonym's VIAF number? Or should these instead be two separate pages? Or some third option? Thanks in advance! Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the ISNI api would allow the two clusters to be merged, thatwould be checked by the ISNI QT, and propogated back to VIAF? Rich Farmbrough, 18:23 29 March 2014 (GMT)
At the moment it is not clear whether VIAF/ISNI plan to merge authors' names with their pseudonyms into a single authority record. In the meantime, how should we handle them here in Wikisource? Have one page with two authority control templates OR have two separate pages (each with their own authority control template) that then cross-link to each other? Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ignore the VIAF data for the pseudonym. How is it needed? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I was asking in an attempt to understand how to handle a complex situation like this. I'll do as you suggest and ignore these situations and just let someone else deal with it. There's plenty of other stuff to do. Tertiaryresources (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Way-forward on Wikidata and Authority control[edit]

Hi. I feel a bit lost on what we want to do as next step with WD and VIAF. I have the feeling that there are different schools. Another option is that I am the one completely out of synch. All I want is to clarify the status, so I will not put effort into something that can be thrown away any minute from now.

1. Does it still make sense to add VIAF data locally here?

  • yes, iff a page is not yet linked to Wikidata ....?
  • no ...
  • yes, always ...
  • ...

2. Is it time to remove local VIAF data and rely on WD and {{authority control}}?

  • yes, iff ...
  • yes, but only after ensuring WD data is same as local data ...
  • yes, but only after ensuring WS is listed as source in WD ...
  • no, not yet ...
  • ...

3. Are there other runs of bots planned in WD to continuously update WD with new info in WS?

  • if so, what they will look for ...? (if someone from WD is listening, I am available so support here, not just putting the burden on you.)

And similar others.--Mpaa (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:
1. I don't think it hurts to have authority control data here but it should all go to Wikidata where possible. Obviously, pages not yet connected to Wikidata should keep their data until there is somewhere to put it. I have not found a VIAF importer gadget on Wikidata yet, so I still sometimes find it easier to import here and then copy across; I probably shouldn't do this, however.
2. I think we are keeping the VIAF number itself locally. We should probably aim to delete local copies of the rest eventually. As with no. 1, I don't think duplication of data hurts, so there is no immediate deadline and we would want to be sure the Wikidata data matched ours (or better) first. In my opinion, eventually we should be relying on Wikidata for all except VIAF itself.
3. There are no bot runs planned that I know of. I don't really know how Wikidata bots work in this regard. Similarly, I don't know of any plans to harvest our VIAF data. Either would be nice. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
First, I think it's important to recognize that WikiData and VIAF are both relatively new tools, and as such there is a lot of messy data in both of them (duplicate records, incorrect data, etc.). However, I think that's a good thing -- although there is a lot of work to do to clean up all these authority records, the fact that all this data is being centralized (instead of being spread across Wikimedia projects / individual nations' catalogs) is going to make a HUGE positive impact in the long run. But at the moment, I'm trying not to expect too much from either tool too early. Now, having said that, Mpaa is right that we need to be thinking about long-term workflows and their impact. So here are my thoughts:
1. Yes, we should add VIAF data to author pages via the authority control template. However, I agree with AdamBMorgan that we should make pointing to Wikidata the highest priority. Making that connection will allow for later bots to do authority control cleanup as VIAF records are merged/fixed. As an example, I've already found several instances where a VIAF number in a Wikisource page is out of date (pointing to a VIAF record that has been merged into another VIAF record with a different number). When I find these, I manually correct the VIAF number in Wikisource, but I think bots can do this later as things are cleaned up over time.
Regarding out-of-date VIAFs, I am planning to clean them up with a bot (I need to find some time). Data can be found on VIAF Dataset page, redirections within the VIAF dataset.--Mpaa (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
2. I think it's too early to remove VIAF records from Wikisource pages. In my vision of things, the VIAF number will always be visible on Wikisource pages, but those numbers will be automatically updated by bots as corrections are made on VIAF's site. But that would consist of VIAF sending updates to Wikidata, and Wikisource would then display the updated Wikidata information (like an infobox).
3. I have no idea what bots are planned, but I envision Wikisource author pages automatically displaying an infobox with whatever relevant information is in Wikidata. I think it would be great for Wikidata to start by harvesting our author metadata (firstname, lastname, birthyear, deathyear, etc.) so that it can be shared amongst sister Wikimedia projects. Eventually the data will be edited only on Wikidata and reflected amongst all the projects the moment that the change is made. That's how I picture it in my head, anyway. I look forward to others' responses! Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me preface what follows by first saying I'm largely playing catch up with all this myself & that I'm generally in agreement with what has been said so far. I would like to revist some points, however....
1. The current AuthControl template & Module we use is -a copy of the Commons version that was-a copy based on the Wikipedia version. The categorization originally intiated by the Template part, originally, tracked No VIAF on Wikidata & VIAF mismatch on Wikidata returns. Based on the latter & some common sense, I added a third Cat that first checked to see if we even had a VIAF (No VIAF on Wikisource) string that could be "pinged" to accomplish the same - otherwise, any polling asked of us would be inaccurate and or incomplete. So it is not I who made tracking these nuances key - they did. I just followed in their footsteps.

In short, the ~600 or so No VIAF on wikisource hits must be satisfied locally by manually adding at least the VIAF string here on WS. I believe this is priority 1.

2. Removal is premature. Based on the original 2 (now 3) categories generated by the authority control Template, VIAF (at the least) must be present to properly bring the no VIAF present cats down to zero both on Wikidata & on Wikisource. Zero-ing those 2 cats out would leave both WS & WS with the task of resolving the remaining Cat, mismatched VIAFs.

Bring that last Cat down to zero resolving mismatches along with the other 2 and imho only then can we safely revisit this point and how to act on it as a permanent policy.

3. As far as I can tell, the batch of now obsolete interwiki bots that ran under the old scheme seem to be finding new life by working on one thing or the other for Wikidata - can't say if that helps or hurts our efforts here locally. Again, the point now is not so much about harvesting all our labors in compiling accurate Authority Control data pre-Phase 2 (that train has left the station) and seems now I surmise now are more about addressing and resolving issues more in the vein of the two (now three) VIAF tracking categories mentioned above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule I am not keen on removing author/portal AC references from Wikisource ever. However having inflamed you all with that statement I shall explain when I do consider removal acceptable… and along the way I hope make clear my personal support for the concept of WS AC entries having their very own local IDs:

You might note that the WikiData property entries all have have a "Source" and "Rank" attribute (the latter is the three little boxes icon. To the best of my knowledge "Rank" is currently now always "normal" which effectively means absolutely no quality control—from the point of view of wikidata—has been taken whatsoever.)

If enWS ever wants to be taken seriously as a source of this kind of research local records must contain some kind of locally unique ID (to permit those Source attributes to back-link to)—and retain locally the information which gives the WD property its "legitimacy." If everybody runs around merrily deleting information on the basis it is "now in WD" then where has that chain of factual establishment gone?

By all means delete local references you are confident were researched elsewhere (by the way, how do you know that?) but otherwise there is a severe risk of simply flushing the fruits of sound effort away pointlessly.

A point I feel is being missed in all this controversy over authority controls is that the Author: record is likely to become WikiSource's "public interface" and for that an externally-usable record ID will be essential to index (non-AC as well) things like works published from WikiSource, and area where surely we are the definitive record-keepers?

I am painfully aware I have not expressed this nearly as well as I wanted to, and I hope under the ridicule I fear this comment may generate will be able to make myself clearer. AuFCL (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As a comment about source and rank with regard to authority identifiers. They are completely irrelevant! The identifier is a link to a evident self-reference source (see d:Help:Sources). How does one rank a reference to a primary source? You simply don't (see d:Help:Ranking) The closest you could say is that VIAF is the source for the other data of LCCN/NLA/etc. but do we really want to go there when the data provided links back to the respective identifier sources. In short they are a distraction to the discussion here.— billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Frankly, I don't care about this whole issue enough to fight with you. I tried to raise what I perceive might be a relevant point in good faith and can see a waste of time and effort as a result. Until this matter is home and hosed I shall refrain from wasting any effort whatsoever with any kind of author references. I simply do not know what any of you guys want or expect any more. AuFCL (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is ZERO need to maintain any authority control data at this site, where and when it can be pulled from Wikidata. Authority control data at WD can be and will be tested against authority database, so for us to maintain static and unqueryable data is simply makes no sense. The contacts at VIAF are more involved with WD than we will ever be, and you just need to watch that space. There will be data interchange, data, fixes, etc. able to be undertaken that we will only dream will happen here, more bot operators, and more connectivity and especially the schema design to make it happen easily. If there is no WD data, then go and add it.

So if the WD data exists, just add the template. If the WD does not exist, then please add it, and just add the template. If no WD and no desire to do WD, then sure add the AC template with VIAF link, and it will be removed once WD has been done. @AdamBMorgan: there is a VIAF importer at WD, look in d:user:billinghurst/common.js and it inserts more data than our tool, though the search function is a little more limited. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Cheers! I thought there should be something like that around. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I am reliably told that Module:WikidataCheck, which GO3 has already imported from enWP, will be able inform us whether data is available at WD, or not. By using that methodology, as per {{WikidataCheck}}, we should be able to identify which author pages have VIAF data, and which do not. The situation we will still face is where there is no authority data for individuals, and I have only been managing that so far with an html remark in the body, and we may wish to formalise that somehow. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
To re-cap.... The presence of a VIAF identifier was already being tracked via the {{Authority control}} template using the same premise [code] as found in the WikiDataCheck template. Recall...
... all pretty much at the same levels as when we first started; so I will make the plea again
  • For the ~2800 pages falling into one of the above please, stop removing local data for the time being; if anything - add data to maintain uniformity. It can all be removed in the future. There is no Rush here - we are already behind the 8-ball as it is.
  • applying an authority control template with no(0) parameters prevents its reuse by the VIAF gadget if and when discrepancies/inferior identifiers are found/present themselves down the road. You will need to manually remove the blank AuthCont template in these cases (please do not forget to do this when encountering a blank AuthCont template that needs the gadget; duplicates cause false positives all around).

    The alternative is to apply the AuthCont template with at least one parameter w/identifier in place as a best practice. This will allow for any future manipulation by the gadget if need be.

  • If there is a connection established with WD, feel free to update, this, that or the other thing @ WD. This still does not warrant the removal of local data afterwards. In fact, IMHO removal shouldn't take place until a WikiDataCheck for each [core] identifier we host locally is vetted first.
Then there is the matter of the ~4,000 pages not connecting to Wikidata at all regardless of AuthControl template being present in each or not and/or with or without the VIAF parameter present. See the Maintenance of the Month for that tracking in detail. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Regarding the 4000 pages, it is worthwhile to continue to add VIAF data locally. VIAF data can be used as a search key in WD. If in WD there is (will be) an item with P214=VIAFnnnnn, a bot can easily search for it and connect the two. Once the picture is clear and stable, removing info from {{Authority control}} (checking connection to WD and same VIAF value on WS and WD) is easy to automate as well.--Mpaa (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
We can probably just request a bot run on Wikidata to harvest all of our authority control data (but not delete it). I'm not sure, however, if we should wait for the last quarter of the authorspace to be connected (it will probably be a few months yet) or go ahead with that now. After that, we can sort out our side of the data ourselves. As far as I was aware, this ultimately means just keeping the VIAF number itself and no others, but I am not opposed to keeping everything; it's, at worst, inefficient but won't actually damage anything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm of like mind - asking for a bot importation of what we have AC-wise seems like the obvious next step. If I can get some help drawing down the ~444 left in Category:VIAF not on Wikisource‎, that should result in the true fill out of Category:Pages with authority control data well enough to then produce a dynamic list cross-referencing Category:Author pages connected to Wikidata with it for a reliable final list of Author: pages targeting the bot import of what we currently have manually stored in our {{Authority control}} template. That is somewhere in the ballpark of 12,500 pages - some of which seems to have our AC/VIAF data imported correctly already.

When that runs it's course, we'll have a far more accurate count in the other 2 CATs (VIAF not on WD and VIAF mismatch) than we have now. Concerning these 2 conditions, I've found the causes behind can be numerous in nature but are mostly due to poor differentiation between similar names between domains. For example... our Author:Edward Livingston Wilson was "imported" incorrectly to Edward L. Wilson at first - I assume because we still pointed to the Wikipedia article of the same middle-initial title in plain-sister even after name-expansion had taken place here. Our AuthControl data was manually input and in place prior to importation - it associated the page with the right WD entry, Edward Livingston Wilson. The current condition is VIAF not on WD through no fault of our own here. The only conclusion I can draw from that is importation is dependent on our Wikipedia association(s) when it should(?) be independent of others.

The point of the example is to illustrate the need to resolve our maintenance CATs as soon as possible or the vetting of data imports will only be partial at best. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Few remarks.
  • Category:VIAF not on Wikidata‎ -> this is composed by: 1) this[enwikisource]%20AND%20noclaim[214]%20AND%20claim[31%3A5]# (about 800) and all the authors on WS that have VIAF but are not connected to WD. I checked if items in the list on WD have VIAF locally here on WS but I was able to cut it down only from 900 to 800.
  • Category:VIAF different on Wikidata‎ (now 215 P) -> I removed all the mismatches due to VIAF old id, they need to be check manually at WD.
My conclusion is that the new bot run will not import a lot of new data into WD unless we connect pages first, but it is nevertheless worth to try.--Mpaa (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I'm getting lost a bit here. If your findings indicate poor return on investment regarding whittling down the 3 VIAF specific maintenance CATs, then what is the Authority Control status of the ~4000 or so non WD connected Author pages? Should we / do we need to address that here locally to maximize eventual data importation? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-14[edit]

09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the default site typography coming soon[edit]

This week, the typography on Wikimedia sites will be updated for all readers and editors who use the default "Vector" skin. This change will involve new serif fonts for some headings, small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements. The schedule is:

  • April 1st: non-Wikipedia projects will see this change live
  • April 3rd: Wikipedias will see this change live

This change is very similar to the "Typography Update" Beta Feature that has been available on Wikimedia projects since November 2013. After several rounds of testing and with feedback from the community, this Beta Feature will be disabled and successful aspects enabled in the default site appearance. Users who are logged in may still choose to use another skin, or alter their personal CSS, if they prefer a different appearance. Local common CSS styles will also apply as normal, for issues with local styles and scripts that impact all users.

For more information:

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team

Can some css expert advice on what I have to insert in my .css to have the font in the edit box in edit mode larger? When I inspect it, it is the area called TEXTAREA#wpTextbox1. I tried to look around but could not find anything related to it.--Mpaa (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't claim "expert" status but what about this:
#wpFooterTextbox {
—I am assuming you want headers and footers similarly sized as well? If not drop "#wpHeaderTextbox" and "#wpFooterTextbox" (but remember to retain the "{" as the syntax needs it!)
Adjust "120%" to factor of your choice. To resize preview area as well add
—to the top of the list. As far as I can tell, none of this affects non-edit viewing or main space/transclusion in any fashion, but bear in mind all edits both inside and outside of Page:-space will be affected. Hope this is what you wanted. AuFCL (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This does not work[edit]

"Alternatively randomly have a page selected that requires validation."

" 403: User account expired

The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user erwin85, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.

If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: erwin85 [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)

HTTP server at - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org " —Maury (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Toolserver is being shut down by Wikimedia Deutschland sometime soon and many tools have been shut down and/or moved. If there is no toollabs: replacement, then whatever Toolsever link we have probably needs to be removed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Adam. I thought that link was a good idea. Do you want me to try to remove that Toolserver Link? —Maury (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a page for toollabs:erwin85, so he may have ported his tool across. I'm not sure which tool it is, however, so I can't check. Where is this link? (Otherwise, yes, you might as well remove the link entirely if there is no working replacement.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan: This is the tool (the working one, anyway--the other one doesn't work). Maury, on which page does this link appear? I can't remember. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld [t] 17:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I found three instances of this link and changed them. If there are more, the new link is a wikilink like this: toollabs:erwin85/randomarticle.simple.php?lang=en&family=wikisource&namespaces=-1&categories=Proofread (it can be piped like a normal wikilink, so any text can be displayed). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Erwin has retired from the Wikimedia space, Magnus shifted Erwin's tools to labs, though there is no guarantee that the tools will be supported into the future. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton title discussion at Wikipedia[edit]

A proposal has been made at Wikipeda, at w:Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, to change the title of the article, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton". If that move succeeds (so far it looks like a substantial majority of editors support it), would we likewise move Author:Hillary Rodham Clinton to Author:Hillary Clinton? Cheers! BD2412 T 16:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. Wikisource tends to use the full name whenever possible, as a form of disambiguation as much as anything else. Judging by the various authority controls and Internet Archive, this is somewhat standard for libraries. Sister projects can move their pages around without affecting us too badly as long as Wikidata/interproject links all point in the right direction (and I expect they'll have redirects even if they don't update links). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
[MORE] Looking into it further, we should probably add a "Diane" in there too. There is no WS:COMMONNAME or WS:CONCISE; the closest case I can recall is disagreement over Author:Mark Twain vs. Author:Samuel Clemens, and that page can now be found at Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens. As long as we have redirects it makes little practical difference. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation (and for fixing the header). I see now that you also have Author:William Jefferson Clinton where Wikipedia has "Bill Clinton", and Author:George Herbert Walker Bush where Wikipedia has "George H. W. Bush". BD2412 T 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
good to see the reference librarians prevailing, but is Author:O. Henry an oversight? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Naughty, naughty: preying upon the academically gifted yet simultaneously stupid! \scriptstyle{\underset{\text{?}}{\overset{\text{shooting}}{\text{fish}\in\text{barrel}}}} AuFCL (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of oversights, or exceptions — depending on your point of view. Author:T. S. Eliot is another case, where a move to "Thomas Stearns Eliot" was reverted and the underlying disagreement never resolved. Hesperian 00:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Help link in sidebar?[edit]

Is it just me, or does the help link in the sidebar go to instead of our own Help:Contents page? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My fault. It should be OK now. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks for fixing it. :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser permission[edit]

Where can I ask for AWB permission here in Wikisource? --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you need to have permission on this project (I don't know of any area where that would happen). If you want to run it as a bot, with a bot flag, that needs approval in an earlier section of this page, and see Wikisource:Bots for more information. If you want to run it manually just to semi-automate your own edits, then I think you can just do so. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello AdamBMorgan, yes you are right, it seems I do not need permission to use AWB here (I did not expect it. AWB may be abused as it can make many edits quickly). I tried to test in my user talk page, But there it detected no error. I have just made a test edit. Although I told in edit summary that the "test edit" would be reverted quickly, I have not made the reversion. I think the edit was fine (an article should not be linked in the same page. AWB worked fine here). But feel free to revert the edit.
    And about my AWB need— I have been working at Wikipedia (En)’s Swami Vivekananda project for last two years. I have a website too. This website directly cites Wikisource content. I have noticed there are many errors in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Please see my contributions, I am trying to fix errors. But it is a tedious work. AWB may help in gather pages/fixing some errors quickly (I’ll not need to open new page in new tab, click on edit link etc). Fully automated edits will not work. I’ll need to check edits manually before saving. Plus, I am going to propose removing all special character alphabets (à to a, ń to n etc) from these few thousand pages’ Complete Works. I have noticed, these are not consistent. In some pages they have used IAST/IPA, in some pages they have used general Roman alphabets. It becomes very difficult to search or follow. I’ll propose the change first, and if it is accepted, AWB will be very helpful here.
    Plus is there any bot here that fixes paragraph justification like this? Most probably it is the result of "bad copy paste", lines are breaking "before 78 characters" like plain text email. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 00:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think there was a line break removing tool for paragraphs somewhere but I can't remember where or what it was. AWB can remove line breaks, or replace them with spaces, (I believe a line break is \n) but it will affect all line breaks, including the ones you want to keep. NB: Special characters should match characters used in the original publication (I can't find a scan anywhere, so I can't tell what that was). Feel free to make the proposal though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Index:Homer - Iliad, translation Pope, 1909.djvu[edit]

Can someone please do some assembly work on this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ok, done, please check work. reformat titles how you want. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It does bother me a little that this is classified only as "Early modern poetry" and "18th century works". Is that our norm for translations of Classical literature? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Help request[edit]

Request for someone to take a look at the couple questions in the Help section above. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate file - Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan - What to do?[edit]

I've found 2 files of Index:Ambulance 464 by Julian Bryan - Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan.djvu and Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan.pdf the djvu file is the most advanced but the pdf appears to have pages missing from the djvu file. What should be done? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-15[edit]

08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned reference[edit]

If anyone has insight as to where the reference should be placed on this page, please feel free to place it. Also, there are two characters (letters) in the reference (in the word "samrad") that I can't replicate; if someone has the ability, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I entered the two characters, by copying them from Wikipedia:Dot (diacritic), but I'm not sure where the reference is supposed to go. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
We both plagiarized Wikipedia except you beat me to it by a few seconds because I got the simultaneous editing notice.Face-smile.svg. I will move the reference to the header.— Ineuw talk 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to solve the reference issue too but the footnote isn't very clear. It might be referring to the line 'Air—"The brink of the White Rocks."' under the title. After googling a few phrases, I came up with an Edward Bunting who included "The Brink of the White Rocks" in his 1840 book The Ancient Music of Ireland. I can't tell what herring have to do with anything, however, and Google can't match the Irish text to anything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A comment on the place of {{nop}}[edit]

In proofreading other works, I came across pages where the {{nop}} was placed prior to section codes, page end references, and occasionally followed by a space. Am quite sure that {{nop}} must be placed as the very last line of the page on its own, because anything that follows ends up on the next page. This may not be critical and just poor coding practice with hidden wiki codes, but it affects the following text line if a space follows the template.— Ineuw talk 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there was an issue a while back where, it was working inconsistently. I have some memories that imply I may have added it to of the next page to get it working as desired. Then again, I may be remembering incorrectly. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It may be helpful to avoid fixating upon usage of {{nop}} only at page endings, and think on it more as a directive to the wiki* system that you (the editor) actually know what you are doing at that point and don't want the system/parser second-guessing your intentions. Ironically, MW provides a rarely-used keyword <nowiki/> for precisely this purpose; but it was either unavailable or unknown to the original author of the "do-nothing" template. In its current incarnation (an empty <div>) it actually forces a new line start and so it does not, in fact, "do nothing," and as a result cannot be placed just anywhere without undesirable side-effects; whereas <nowiki/> may be safely used for in-line effects such as 'italic' phrases containing leading single quotes. Try to do that using {{nop}}. (Hint: it won't work!)

In essence there are two distinct and unrelated situations where {{nop}} may be usefully utilised:

  1. at page endings to enforce a paragraph (traditional usage)
  2. as a "marker hint" of points where the editor assesses a new paragraph may begin. In this latter use {{nop}} may appear almost anywhere in the text, but typically at points like table-row-ends or line-height changes where mediawiki sometimes does not "take the hint" that a typography change is required. (Special note to Ineuw: I've not experimented with this approach; but I wonder about {{fs90}} et al applications…?)
AuFCL (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Should have clarified at the beginning of the post I was referring to the end of page use to indicate the beginning of a new paragraph.
The only two other uses known to me are:
  1. The start of tables spanning pages.
  2. It's required at the bottom of a page of page spanning tables which contain a <ref> embedded in one of the cells. Without it the reference goes "haywire".
Both {{fs90}} (for single paragraphs) and {{fs90/s}}/{{fs90/e}} (enclosing multiple paragraphs) have begin and end padding to distance the enclosed text from the surroundings.— Ineuw talk 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. Please try, next time you encounter a legitimate use of {{fs90}} (or similar) which might be applied to a couple or more paragraphs on the same page—which normally defeats a single encompassing template use; at least for the first paragraph—this combination: {{fs90|{{nop}}text…}} and indicate the results here. If I encounter one first I undertake to do likewise. I suspect the results might prove satisfactory, but (of course) run the usual risk of being totally wrong…AuFCL (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason {{nop}} is called "nop" is because it was created to perform no operation, to do nothing. It was useful in a range of situations e.g. one could separate a single quote from italics using ''{{nop}}'. It annoys me that this no longer works; that the function of this template no longer matches its original intent; that it is now a template for forcing a paragraph break at the end of a page, which was only ever one of many use cases. It would annoy me even more if we were to take the next logical step and mandate a restrictive set of legitimate uses. Hesperian 05:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Public domain texts digitized by Google[edit]

Are we allowed to archive public domain texts digitized by Google? They have watermarks everywhere so I don't think we can use the scans. Does that rule them out completely? Abyssal (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

well, if you look at the current Wikisource:Proofread of the Month, i.e. Page:The_Spirit_of_the_Nation.djvu/13, you will see watermarks galore. apparently the scanners, will keep trying to get their credit. apparantly ok on Commons:Watermarks: "uploading of files with visible but relatively unobtrusive watermarks is merely discouraged, not prohibited." see also [78] for NC claims of PD works. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Books in whatever format can be avoided when a Google watermark is on pages. Watermarks can also be removed by programs. I have had and upgraded a purchased program that removes googles watermarks which is Adobe Acrobat. Mine is Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. But I believe there are free or inexpensive programs that will allow the removal of watermarks. If I found a djvu book that could not be found elsewhere and filled with google watermarks I would download the .pdf version of the book and remove all watermarks on every page and then upload the cleaned book to Internet Archives aka so that a .djvu version would be created. I would then download that clean djvu file and use it on WS. Google, I believe, $ells the best books and we (and others as well as companies) get the watermarked versions so we cannot sell the scanned books., eBay, Google, Google Play and others offer books for sale. So, in this manner when there are any expenses there are also profits to offset the expenses. Long ago I worked at a university and where I worked they had students scanning books as an "assignment" so there the student pays for the opportunity and scans books. Each book is them is printed as needed, or requested, and sold. It cost the university nothing. I am guessing now that some companies that have scanned pdfs and sell them make a deal with universities but I do not know for positive because my work was long, long ago. Still, that may still be the process or a part of the overall process. I do not think anyone selling is not making a profit and therefore keeps going. Companies are not going to work with books for free. Companies exist for profit or they would not exist. —Maury (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
meh, when we transcribe, then the machine readable comes to the fore, only see the watermark on drill down. the fees from e-readers will make money from copyrighted works not free works [79]; this is a prestige thing. ponzi schemes would make a profit, or they would not exist. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Epigram" not accounted for in PotM TOC[edit]

There is a poem (scroll to page end) that appears in the text, but is not represented in the TOC [It would appear after "Nation's Valentine", on pg. 25; it was written by "Terræ Filius"] What to do? There are 11 other "Epigrams" in the text, which I have disambiguated in this way for Mainspace (& TOC): ex: The Spirit of the Nation/Epigram (3). If this poem were present in the text, it would be Epigram #4. Links for the remaining Epigrams in the TOC (as well as their corresponding Mainspace pages) would need to be adjusted accordingly (which I can do myself after opinions on direction). Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One option would be to add the piece to the TOC in its proper place and wrap the title in a {{SIC}} with a "not listed in original, but appears in text". The Mainspace title could be The Spirit of the Nation/Epigram (unlisted) instead of using a numeral (which would require moving several pages and renaming)... All that would be necessary is to adjust a couple prev/next's on pages in the Main... If that sounds okay, I'll go ahead; I'll wait for either approval or another idea. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Would {{auxTOC}} work? I'm not too sure whether it can be inserted between two other entries, but it is usually used if there is no table of contents in the original work (and sometimes when the introduction, preface, &c. are not listed). —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 06:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that might look a little "bulky"... If something could be inserted that would be inline with the rest of the TOC text (listing title, author, page no., etc.), without bringing too much attention to the fact that it is not in the original but without making it an eyesore. That's why I was thinking of using {{SIC}} with a "variable". But feel free to test something out if you're technically savvy! I may change my mind! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well then, I think your suggestion is better--but maybe {{tooltip}} instead of {{SIC}} might be better, since (a) SIC is used to mark typos and such errors in printed text (not text which was never printed...), and (b) you can give your own notes in {{tooltip}} (in {{SIC}}, a preceding [sic] is added). Feel free to do whatever you think is best. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 17:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll give it a try in a little bit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done using {{tooltip}}, unless there are objections. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks nice, not too obtrusive. :-) —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 03:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

PDF page cropping template crops only first page, even though another page is specified[edit]

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

In the above page cropping as per Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-04#PDF page cropping template, I found that cropping is defaulting to first page, even though another page is specified. In the given link, it worked for Magnus's sample pdf of 4 pages. Can Magnus Manske or any others who have used this help? --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The page parameter needs to begin with a capital "P" it seems. Page 73 should come up now that I switched |page= to |Page= . -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • George Orwell III, Thanks for your help.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • George Orwell III, The location parameter does not work. It seems to be left always, even if others are specified. For example right was used in the above example. Can you confirm? Thanks. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Despite the name and template description, all Location=right actually does is set the CSS class of the displayed block to "right"…which sadly is not defined by default. I know this is not what you really want, but say setting Location=floatright actually does something, as that just happens to be a predefined class. Result below (in fact →):
Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

Better minds (than my own) may wish to elaborate? AuFCL (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • AuFCL, Thanks for your tip. Is there any thing else for "Center"? --Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Regrettably nothing particularly springs to mind. My point was that the template (as written) assumes a particular set of CSS classes which (if ever were present) certainly don't appear to be so any more. This is why I was hoping somebody might jump in and point out a nice canonic list which I seem to have overlooked (hint still outstanding anybody?) In anybody's language use of "floatright" as I did above is not really forgivable in "proper" use.

If on the other hand you just want something to work on your own private pages, a short-term stopgap would be to set Location=SomeValueIJustMadeUp and then define in your own Special:MyPage/common.css any styling which you feel fit to do so. For example (this won't work until you copy the CSS block into your own page, and then only for you!):

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly
Sample personal CSS to cause above to centre:
div.thumb.SomeValueIJustMadeUp {margin:0 auto 0 auto;}
I repeat that this is merely an exploration of the issue, short of changing the template. AuFCL (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is just getting silly. I modified the template to accept direct style additions. If this upsets anybody feel free to revert it and consider supplying a sensible set of classes for people to use. Hmm?

This: {{Css PDF Crop |Image=Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf |Page= 73 |bSize = 400 |cWidth =200 |cHeight = 100 |oTop = 100 |oLeft = 100 |Location= |style=margin:0 auto 0 auto |Description= Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly }} now does this:

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

Whereas this: {{Css PDF Crop |Image=Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf |Page= 73 |bSize = 400 |cWidth =200 |cHeight = 100 |oTop = 100 |oLeft = 100 |Location= |style= |Description= Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly }} does this:

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

And this: {{Css PDF Crop |Image=Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf |Page= 73 |bSize = 400 |cWidth =200 |cHeight = 100 |oTop = 100 |oLeft = 100 |Location= |style=margin:left:auto |Description= Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly }} does this:

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

And finally this: {{Css PDF Crop |Image=Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf |Page= 73 |bSize = 400 |cWidth =200 |cHeight = 100 |oTop = 100 |oLeft = 100 |Location= |style=margin:0 auto 0 auto;padding:1em 1.5em 1em 1em;background:orange |Description= Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly }}[[User:AuFCL|AuFCL]] is just plain ugly (but it still demonstrates a point I hope.)

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

———better? AuFCL (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • AuFCL, Thanks for exploring and providing fixes. The right positioning seems to require style parameter setting as left. Actually this should have been a heavily used template on wikisource, if the template problems are resolved and a way to get the coordinates of the start of the bounding box and its width and height are easily determined on wiki. BTW, I tried to update the description comment to refer to the proper status, but I failed as the whole section is getting removed upon saving. You can see the diff--Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • AuFCL Updating the template code from solved the problem. Thanks once again for your exploration and leads.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-16[edit]

07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Proofread Page extension trouble brewing?[edit]

While I was looking into some coming fixes to WikiEditor in 1.23wmf22 over on the test site, I noticed the inability to edit/create any pages in the Page: namespace (produces PHP fatal error in....).

Can others duplicate? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know how to get Tpt's (or Phe's?) attention quickly? (1.23wmf22 is to be rolled out some time Tuesday the 15th for us) -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can certainly duplicate, if what you mean is this:
PHP fatal error in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.23wmf22/extensions/ProofreadPage/includes/page/ProofreadPageContent.php line 262:

Declaration of ProofreadPageContent::preloadTransform() must be compatible with that of Content::preloadTransform()

Sounds like one way to wean us off this crazy treadmill. Perhaps it is a hint of sorts? AuFCL (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. The bug have been fixed by Reedy and everything should work fine shortly. Tpt (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems resolved both here and @ test2 (but I've been away in the days since 1st posting this). I guess "no news is good news" (no additional comments) in this case so the bug can be closed. My thanks to all -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge Author:Lester Chadwick with Author:Howard Roger Garis[edit]

The former appears to be a pseudonym of the latter. Should they not be merged?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

With the way the Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate used pseudonymous author's names, there is no guarantee that all the works published under Chadwick's name were actually by Garis. This is why we've created separate author pages for the various Syndicate pseudonyms. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with non-free images in transcriptions of freely licensed works[edit]

All, I am interested in whether the topic of an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP -- see foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy for a definition) for English Wikisource has been discussed. I have searched the archives but found nothing relevant.

I bring this up because several transcriptions I have worked on recently, which are freely licensed overall, contain a small number of non-free images. The following index file illustrates the issue pretty clearly:

Index:A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources.pdf

Please look at the colored links to the pages of this book. Most pages, indicated in green, have been fully validated, including a few pages (like as this one) that have screen shots from web sites that use free licenses.

But some pages, including this one and this one, include graphics that are protected by copyright.

According to my understanding, there are two legal principles that can make it legal to use such files, depending on the circumstances:

  • Fair use, a principle in United States law that permits the use of material protected by copyright under certain circumstances; and
  • De minimis, a principle in many legal jurisdictions, that if the context of a work's reproduction gives it sufficiently minimal significance, copyright restrictions don't apply.

I believe Wikisource would be a better resource if it allowed us, in some way or another -- even if at low resolution -- to incorporate non-free files, sparingly and on occasion, into this kind of generally free work. Do others agree? If so, can anybody suggest a process for creating a suitable Wikisource:Exemption doctrine policy document?

I'll note, there is currently an effort underway to create an EDP for Meta Wiki -- see this discussion, this proposal, its talk page, this alternate draft. Hopefully this context will make it a little easier to figure out a worthwhile process for this project. -Pete (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

i support EDP, i would use the American University Code, but then my bias is well established. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I tend to prefer a hard line on copyright, especially here where entire works are housed, and don't think we should start allowing copyrighted material of any kind. However, in this case, isn't the fair-use issue happening with the original publishers? UNESCO and the Commonwealth of Learning have compiled and published this document under a free-ish licence (CC-BY-SA-3.0). I can't find any explicit acknowledgement at the moment but presumably they got permission to make this document and release it in this way. If so, that permission and licence extends to the illustrations it contains. I think we can assume good faith on their part that they produced a legal document. Summary: I think all the images are free already. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a different understanding: I think they would have been published in the book either under fair use, or because of de minimis. I doubt there was a free license granted for each of those images. It might be worthwhile to ask the publisher, but even if all images were in this case released under CC BY-SA, there are still other, similar books that are freely licensed overall, and contain a few images from copyright sources.
I don't think there is any way to complete a transcription of a book like this unless we create an EDP. -Pete (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
other places handle this by redacting images. beware relying on the copyright decisions of others, institutions tend to not to do nuance. (i.e. PD text and C image) maybe we can do a placeholder here, if no consensus for EDP. you would have to assess each image and redact from commons. or OTRS each screenshot. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Status of Transcription Projects[edit]

What is the best way to get an overview of the progress of a transcription project? I often stumble upon an on-going transcription project like (PSM Volume 54) or a recently completed one like (Character of Renaissance Architecture) having a want to know more. I will wonder what were the ten last updates and by whom? So far, I have only found one way using Recent Changes "tag filter" with PSM watch. This appears to only work for pre-configured tags. I was wondering if a tool or other technique would help us find new editing partners and encourage collaboration. The answer may come from WikiSense Contributor on toolserver by daniel. It be enhanced to support wildcard searches across subpages. If there isn't a better way, shall I ask for new tag filters to be added? Thanks for the pointers. - DutchTreat (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

See if Related Changes (link in Tools, on the left side) for an Index page suits you (e.g. )--Mpaa (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Page information (in your tools sidebar menu) is where very basic info like that can be found for any page in any namespace. If I undersood the premise behind the fairly recent introduction of &action=info correctly, the "footer" (or last section if you like) on that page can be configured manually to host additional links or data on a customized basis as needed/warranted.

And I suppose community proposal/support should be the avenue taken to amend/expand what is already found there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mpaa: and @George Orwell III: Thanks. Recent Changes using the Index namespace pulls in all of the changes to Pages! Very useful, yet limited to the last 30 days. For a dormant project, digging further into the past would be nice. I appreciate the help. -- DutchTreat (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
(Warning passive/aggressive humour: may not be appreciated by anybody!) Try following the "Data item" link on this very page and you will be taken to a WikiData page titled "Wikipedia:Village pump" the aliases for which which apparently cannot be edited, even by administrators. (Hint: have a look at the nearly-endless complaints in its discussion page.) This is one of the many reasons people don't (much) like the way WD is being designed/operated/run… AuFCL (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Ghosts from the past. Fwiw... there is no "default" page for what amounts to "Central discussion", "Village pump" and similar but they all have the Project: namespace in common (which is probably why someone thought interwiki-ing everything found in the Project: namespace was a good idea; wrong - disambig(s) should have been setup first).

The Project namespace is the only one of the 16 default (technically 17 with Image: & File: "sharing" a ns) namespaces every formal wiki have in common. Project: (or ns:4) is the only one that can be "[re]assigned" to match the sitename (we are the Wikisource: project so think of Project: as a built-in redirect to Wikisource: in short).

Project:Scriptorium = Wikisource:ScriptoriumWikipedia:Village pump

-- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(Extending the example) And from enWS perspective at least: Wikipedia:Village pumpWikipedia:Village pump AuFCL (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I promise to shut up about this after pointing out one final inanity: {{gap}} has an entry in WikiData d:Q6602990 (Why are templates being indexed?) which in turn points back to w:template:spaces which is not even remotely similar. Try to grasp the disaster potential of somebody one day mindlessly "refreshing" the local template from the apparently-WikiData-endorsed wikipedia version… AuFCL (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Complex Interwikis[edit]


How do we add interwikis in a case like Wuthering Heights. We have potentially at least 3 English editions, and many translations (already 2 in French). Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I see that the first edition was "poorly supervised", and the second was edited by Charlotte Brontë. So what is the most authoritative edition of this book? IA has several scans: 1905 ed., by Thomas Nelson, 1911, by Hodder and Stoughton, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded 2 more scans: File:Brontë - Wuthering Heights, Hodder and Stoughton, 1911.djvu and File:Brontë - Wuthering Heights, Harper, 1900.djvu. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you are referring to Wikidata items, and I'm not sure how much of this you know already, so forgive me if this seems obvious: The Books Task Force on Wikidata separates a story (or whatever) into a "Work" and an "Edition". Each story only ever has one "Work" item but each separate incarnation, version, edition, manifestation, etc, has its own "Edition" item. So there is just one Wuthering Heights work item (Q202975, FYI), which can be linked to our versions/disambiguation page, but each of the following should have its own, completely separate data item: Wuthering Heights (1847), Wuthering Heights (1850), Wuthering Heights (1892 French), Wuthering Heights (1900), Wuthering Heights (1910), Wuthering Heights (1911), and Wuthering Heights (1925 French). This does currently cause an interwiki problem because each version is connected to Wikidata at the "Edition" level, which means that, as far as the computer system is concerned, they are each not connected to any other text on any other Wikisource. I believe a request for a solution has been filed, which should allow pages to use the site links from other data items for their interwikis, but this technology does not exist yet. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
NB: I have tried to set some of this up. Q202975 is the work item: I've connected it to the versions page here and on French Wikisource. Q16464281 is the edition item for the first edition (Thomas Cautley Newby, December 1847): It isn't connected to anything at the moment but this is to what Wuthering Heights (1st edition) should be connected when it exists. Both data items are linked to each other by the "edition"/"edition or translation of" pair of properties. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Wuthering Heights, the work only went through one edition in the author's lifetime, so this must be regarded as the authoritative edition, regardless of the typographic errors. Later editions may be cleaner but their provenance is inferior.
Personally, I would prefer not to host a bunch of non-notable editions. We have Emily's first edition, we ought to have Charlotte's second edition, and we should stop there unless any subsequent edition has been identified by scholars as notable.
Hesperian 01:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer. This cleared my question about the English editions.
For the interwikis, the issue may be that a translation might not be done from the first edition, but from a later one. And how do we link chapters? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I think these are the kinds of excellent questions that we will need to be challenging the Wikidata developers with. When it comes to works like the Bible, we should be mapping links all the way down to individual verses, and the issue of mapping out what is a translation / version / edition of what would be a massive scholarly undertaking. Hesperian 01:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the current consensus is, in most cases, to avoid connecting individual chapters with their own items. It can be done though: each item would be part of (P361) the novel and instance of (P31) chapter. To be honest, I don't have too much experience with works/editions/etc at the moment—I'm mostly connecting authors (still over 3,000 to go)—but I don't think that all aspects of a standard structure has been absolutely decided yet. Personally, I wouldn't want to create items for every chapter of every book; the process takes long enough as it is. The old fashioned interwiki links still work as an alternative. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The best version for the average reader is not always the one with the best provenance. For most works, I think we should have at least one edition in modern spelling and typography. We should also host one version annotated for a general audience of major works. (This is of course passive, ignoring the work behind them, though straight prose is usually relatively simple. But I don't think we should discourage people from doing these.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I modify my position somewhat in the direction of yours. All the same, one would hope that we would host an "edition in modern spelling and typography" had been identified by scholars as in some sense canonical, rather than simply picking a random edition with no thought as to who has done what to it in bringing it to modernity. With respect to Wuthering Heights that niche is filled by the 1976 "Clarendon text"; copyright issues aside, we would definitely want to be hosting that. Hesperian 05:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-17[edit]

08:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wright American Fiction collection[edit]

Folks might be interested in the revamped Wright American Fiction collection, covering American fiction from 1774 to 1900, and offering full-text versions alongside high-quality metadata. Ijon (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki site for data tables[edit]

Recently I participated in a digital humanities hackathon where we created programs for automatic handling of texts. For example, one program involved automatic detection of Biblical phrases in modern prose and poetry. For this and similar projects, we needed quick access to text in a table format, such as, a table of all verses in the Bible. Although such table can be created automatically from Wikisource using the API, it is much more convenient to be able to download the table itself in a computer-readable format, such as comma-seperated-values.

The problem is, a CSV file of the Bible (or other large texts) would be too large to put in a Wikisource page. So, my question is: do you know of a wiki-like website where uses can create and edit data tables in a format that is convenient both for human editors and for computers? --Erel Segal (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Commons:? I can't find anything about whether they accept or ban CSV files from a quick look but it seems like a reasonable thing for them to host and filesize is less of a problem (100MB maximum for normal uploads but they have systems for uploaing larger files if necessary). ADD: I should say, in this case "create and edit" would mean creating it in a normal fashion and editing with external software (then re-uploading it) but CSV is just text; most software down to "Notepad" should be able to edit it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)